The Farnsworth Invention

Last week, Jean and I went down to La Jolla to catch the opening of "The Farnsworth Invention," a play by Aaron Sorkin -- you've heard of him -- about the birth of television and the battle it inspired.

Philo, for those who haven't been bored by tales of my family lore yet, was my great-uncle. And it's not just family pride that makes me say this: he was another order of intellect. At 12, he invented an ignition-key system for automobiles as part of a national contest. At 14, while plowing a field, he came up with the idea that would define his life. He invented a method for broadcasting images over radio waves -- something he called "television."

In 1927, he broadcast the first ever electronic television image. And for the next decade, he was locked in a battle with RCA and its president, David Sarnoff, who insisted they had invented television -- and waged a multi-million dollar campaign against him, back when a million dollars was real money. The fact that RCA's device never worked was a small detail. (As Sorkin has Sarnoff say in the play: "We invented television -- it just doesn't work yet.")

In 1971, Philo died, broke and in obscurity, while the credit for his invention went to other people. Only today is the record finally being set straight.

I grew up with my grandfather's stories of his brother's struggle with RCA and Sarnoff. It shouldn't be any surprise that I loved the play. On a purely personal level, it was amazing to watch scenes played out as I'd heard them described, years ago. Aaron Sorkin and the director, Des McAnuff, were incredibly kind and gracious to us, as were the entire cast and crew. Even though they were all busy with the rush of opening night, they took the time to talk to us (and listen to me babble incomprehensibly about just how really, really cool this was).

But on a purely dramatic level, the play shows the battle in amazing color and detail, covering the birth of the 20th Century through the attempt to control what would be its most important invention.

Sorkin comes up with an ingenious framing device to cover the necessary exposition -- he has Sarnoff and Farnsworth take turns narrating, each occasionally interrupting to provide commentary on the other. It adds another level to the struggle between the two men, illustrating how fluid history can be, how the competition to write the definitive chapters is ongoing.

My biases are obvious, and there's no question as to who really invented television in my mind, or in the play as it's written now. Sarnoff the character says at one point, without Philo, "Everyone else was just spinning pinwheels" -- a reference to the attempts, before Philo, to come up with a mechanical TV system.

But it's a testament to the writing that it's the first time I've ever seen Sarnoff as a sympathetic character. He emigrated from Russia, on the run from the Cossacks who burned down his  family's house, taught himself English, and became the head of one of the most powerful corporations in the world. True, he was a cast-iron son of a bitch, but there is something admirable in the sheer determination and force of will that required. And there was something of the idealist in him, too -- he really thought TV would change the world for the better, and hated commercials, even though they brought in revenue.

It helps that Sarnoff is played by Stephen Lang, who delivers even the coldest, most Machiavellian lines with enough charm to make you smile.

Philo was an idealist, a dreamer; Jimmi Simpson shows him struggling to keep up with his overclocked brain, burning himself down to the wire in an effort to make up with sheer genius the disadvantages of not enough money or help. He naively shows his invention to Vladimir Zworykin, who promptly copies it for RCA -- and the look of betrayal on Simpson's face is heart-breaking.

Despite all the pain Philo had in his life, there are lot of laughs in the play -- Simpson and Lang have great comic timing, the absent-minded professor, and the cheerfully predatory CEO. (The rest of the cast was great as well.)

There's a sense of inevitability about all the events as they play out -- which is the mark of a well-written script. Even in the real world, however, you have to wonder if things would have turned out differently. Philo was no businessman. While he was certainly as gifted as his hero, Thomas Edison, he lacked Edison's ruthlessness and gift for self-promotion. (See: Tesla, Nikola, or Alternating Current.) From everything I've read or heard, Philo wanted his invention to make the world a better place. While he could have used the money, it was never what drove him. (He spent the rest of his life working on a fusion device he hoped would provide limitless, clean, cheap energy.)

Whatever his original intentions, Sarnoff was the one who turned TV into the cash-machine we know today, installed in everyone's home, making billions of dollars out of literal thin air.

Don't get me wrong: Philo deserves the credit for the invention. A court agreed, and RCA was forced to pay Philo a million dollars in royalties -- even as it tried to change history to say otherwise.

Without Philo, we never would have had television. But it's because of Sarnoff, for better or worse, that we have what we now call TV.

Read more about Philo here.

UPDATE: Something I should have mentioned in my original post -- the play is still being workshopped, which means it might change significantly. I thought it was great as it stood, but it wouldn't be fair to judge it as if it were a final draft.

Comments

[Jason Mitchell]

You do realise that when Philo Farnsworth allegedly invented television, he used a mechanical display for his image dissector? Wonder who invented that? Oh yes, John Logie Baird. Farnsworth superfans (you know who you are!) should be glad of the spinning pinwheelers.

There's a reason that this idea was never made into a film - it is based on a false premise!!!

[Ron Farnsworth]

I spent my whole college career interviewing Pem, and if there is one thing I know in my bones, it is that Pem did not write her book to to pick a fight with RCA. I shutter every time anyone brings that up. You are missing the point. She did it to try to inspire people, especially young people, to use whatever talents God gave them to try and make the world a better place. She sure did that for me.
I think Pem would have loved the fact that this play has gotten people thinking about what is more important in life, the contributions you make to humankind, or the profits you make from it.
As far as depression and alcoholism go, to quote my friend, humorist Will Durst: "If you aren't a little depressed, you are not paying attention to what is going on in the world." I also had a few long distace cocktail parties with Cliff Gardner, we laughed alot about all of the idiots you have to deal with when you are simply trying to make a living entertaining and enlightening the world and that helped. The person who created the chapura test, or whatever it is, would be a good example. Some of us are getting a litle older and our eyesight is not as good as it once was. That dosen't mean we have lost our distant vision. I hope this play sends people out ready to have a lively debate.
There has got to be a good bar around here.
Ronnie Farnsworth

[Ron Farnsworth]

I hope we can all agree that the Wright Bros. did not imagine the 747. Or build the airports, the traffic control, or the baggage screeners who enable us to get from one place to another, more or less.
Phil Farnsworth never claimed to have been responsible for the mass communication network that television became. In his only appearence on T.V. (I've Got a Secret, 1957)
Goodsen and Toddman production, He said: "Oh no, literally thousands of people have made contributions.."
So, why don't we all sit down, enjoy the play, and please turn off your video phones.
Ronnie Farnsworth

[Brian B]

I originally posted a much longer comment, but it got lost somehow and never appeared. So here is the shorter version:

I just saw the play and felt it was unjust to Philo. It said that he lost the patent case, become depressed and an alcoholic and was later died. Wow - how bleak! In reality, he won the case against RCA, got paid huge royalties and did a lot of work with ITT on fusion.

Reality is far different than how the play portrays his life. I was very disappointed with the version of 'history'.

[Chris]

More reaction/review of the play here, for anyone interested:

http://community.livejournal.com/west_wing_fans/1246060.html?view=11025004#t11025004

[Chris]

Yeah, that's not what I got from the ending. Philo did struggle with depression the rest of his life, and due to the PR from RCA and Sarnoff, was rarely recognized as the inventor of TV in his own lifetime. I thought the mentions of fusion were pretty obvious in the play, at the end. And the final scene is very clearly labeled Sarnoff's imaginary vision of what he thought of Philo.

But again, it's fiction, and people will probably take from it what they want.

[Brian B]

I just saw the play this weekend and my friends and I REALLY enjoyed it. Great acting and screenplay. BUT then I went home and started researching Philo's life. Wow, it's like the play was a total lie.

At the end of the play we get a monologue of what "really happened to Philo" and it doesn't match anything I've read. According to the play, Philo lost the patent suit, never did anything else intellectually, became depressed and an alcoholic and died in obscurity.

But in reality, Philo actually won the patent suit, made a million dollars off royalties, created more electronic devices and then worked with ITT making advances in fusion research.

So I was pretty upset that the play makes all these bogus claims about his life as if they are recounting historical facts and the whole thing is fictitious.

[Kent M Farnsworth]

An interesting perspective, and well-written. I will probably not be able to travel west to see this play, and Aaron broke off contact with the family years ago, so it is wonderful to hear someone who can express themselves well, recount the subjectives ...
America will always salute the dollar first. If we celebrate inventors we might find many young powerhouse kids in our rural areas. Philo Farnsworth is the embodiment of American ingenuity we all like to call our own, but this good old American thing will wither and die if we treat our inventors and innovators as Phil was. Pres. Lincoln had a good handle on this.

Kent M Farnsworth

[Kent M Farnsworth]

An interesting perspective, and well-written. I will probably not be able to travel west to see this play, and Aaron broke off contact with the family years ago, so it is wonderful to hear someone who can express themselves well, recount the subjectives ...
America will always salute the dollar first. If we celebrate inventors we might find many young powerhouse kids in our rural areas. Philo Farnsworth is the embodiment of American ingenuity we all like to call our own, but this good old American thing will wither and die if we treat our inventors and innovators as Phil was. Pres. Lincoln had a good handle on this.

Kent M Farnsworth

[Stephen]

Article, Chris, you should write an article. This is interesting stuff.

[Chris]

Paul --

In the post, I'm referring to the actual history, not the play. But the play makes the point that Philo invented television repeatedly; like I said, there's no question in the narrative, even though Sarnoff is shown winning the battle in PR and commercially.

Something I should have said in my original post is that the play is still being workshopped; this isn't the final version, and it's probably going to change significantly from what I saw.

Thank you very much for all your work on Philo, in your book and on your site.

Mayrav -- no connection I know of.

[Paul S.]

Thanks for the summation of the play, this is the first I've read and it's good to hear that the essential story line is well handled. Just one question. Your post says:

>>A court agreed, and RCA was forced to pay Philo a million dollars in royalties -- even as it tried to change history to say otherwise.<<

Does the play actually make that point, or are you recalling the actual history there? I understand that an early screenplay focused on Zworykin's 1923/38 patent, rather than the 1934 interference which was the critical litigation that Farnsworth won.

And thanks for the link to Farnovision.com

--PS

[Mayrav]

Any link between Sorkin and Zworykin?