The Farnsworth Invention First Preview — Page 2

I hope they don't pull a Millie. Taking a show that was GREAT at La Jolla and making it GOOD for Broadway.

Were the sets similar to the pictures from La Jolla?

I think that there is definitly a TONY nomination for Jimmi and a possible win for Howell Binkley's gorgeous lighting.

I haven't seen Hank in the role!

In La Jolla Stephen Lang played it who was FANTASTIC.

I think that it would be considered an upset if this show is not nominated. It is undeniably a good play and I am sure if the proper changes are made it will be well accepted by the critics and the New York audiences.

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 12:24 AM

I just got home from the first preview, and I REALLY enjoyed this show. It entertained and educated me in the same way that Aaron Sorkin had done for me with The West Wing. His writing for me illustrated his trademark qualities of brilliant, witty and fast paced dialogue. I also felt that the cast did an outstanding job delivering a quality performance. Hank Azaria and Jimmi Simpson really captured the essence of Aaron Sorkins style of writing and brought these characters to life for me. The Farnsworth Invention not only educated me in an entertaining way, but it also made me think about how different types of people deal with success, failure, and lifes challenges. I definately plan on seeing this show again when I bring my parents along as a bithday gift for my dad.

I'm glad Simpson was good, AC and pharmer. He's been wasted FAR too long in crap parts in movies like "DEBS" and "Rose Red." And he's so, so much more talented than that.

I have high hopes about this one, as I'm a bit of a nerd about the whole invention of television think. As a broadcast major, they made me take television history in college. Really.

Not to mention the new David Mamet play, November. You could fill the Best Play category with Letts, Mamet, McPherson and Stoppard, so it's hard to say anything is a given as far as the Tony categories go at this point of the season.

---

Just out of curiosity, for those who have seen this play, is there a character named Alan P. Dumont who had something to do with the invention or development of the cathode ray tube used in early television?

---

My thoughts:

Tired of seeing films adapted for the stage? Well, how about seeing a film that never even got made adapted for the stage? Honestly, I had no idea that "The Farnsworth Invention," Aaron Sorkin's new play about the race to invent television, now in previews for its Broadway debut at The Music Box, was adapted from an unproduced screenplay until I read up a bit on its later, but the production is so cinematic, I'd already made that guess. The Andrew Lippa-composed relentless underscoring, the huge number of characters and the vignette-style scenes are some of the obvious signs that this is a medium-out-of-water experience. Still, as a former broadcast major in college, it's a compelling story, although I imagine it might be rather tedious for some. The two leads in the cast--the heretofore criminally underused Jimmi Simpson as brainiac inventor Philo Farnsworth and Hank Azaria ruthless businessman and NBC founder David Sarnoff--are more than up to the task here. The big problem comes from the rest of the cast. No one is particularly bad; some, in fact, are quite good. However, most of the 18 or so supporting members play multiple roles to flesh out the more than 100 characters in this show. And some of these characters appear so briefly, it's a bit confusing to see one of the guys funding Farnsworth's research suddenly working for Sarnoff in another scene, or to see Sarnoff barking orders at the young actor who was only recently playing his childhood self. What's more, the script relies entirely too much on narration, and the fact that our two narrators establish themselves as not-too-trustworthy from the get-go makes it even more problematic. Even so, this "Rashomon" of television history is worth checking out for anyone who isn't put off by quite a bit of technical babble. Also, in technical and pacing terms, it was in great shape, particularly considering it was the third preview.

I saw the matinee today...really enojoyed this show!

Both leads, Hank Azaria and Jimmi Simpson (Go BU!) were good, as was the story. I quite enjoyed the narration of each lead's story by the other (especially the last scene with both leads in the courtroom). I also enjoyed the way the play ended...I'm putting this ending right behind the ending of Journey's End. (Not that they're similar in any way...)

My main complaint, besides Jimmi speaking WAY too fast during the first part of act 1 (he DID get better by the way), was the blocking of many of the scenes. Granted, I was on the extreme right of the orchestra...but it seemed as though many times I was staring at the actors' backs instead of their faces.

All in all, I really liked this play...maybe b/c I'm a science nerd and actually KNEW what Farnsworth was talking about while trying to create the television, or maybe it was just well-done. Either way, I was impressed (especially since this show was only the 6th show).

Jaystarr...I was looking for you but didn't see you? Where were you sitting? I thought I would definitely see you at the stage door, but alas, you weren't there. Jimmi, by the way, was a sweetheart...he opened the door and started walking away, not thinking there would be a rather large crowd waiting for him to sign playbills or take photos.

Updated On: 10/20/07 at 08:20 PM

Did anyone see a ton of similarities to Jersey Boys? That may be a strange question, but tonight when I saw Farnsworth Invention, Des McAnuff came out to make his customary announcement before a preview. I remembered how he did this before the Jersey Boys preview I saw back in 2005. Then the show began and as it proceded a ton of similarities between the two popped up in my head. From the opposing men doing contradictory narration/ exposition to the clangy spiral staircase to the function of women as an afterthought to the revealing of falsehoods in the dramatic scenes during the narration directly afterward. Some are absolutely coincidental (the baby- faced hero losing a beloved child in the second act, leading to his maturing in a new way) but some similarities in direction were striking and absolutely a honed skill by McAnuff (I felt). Contrasting the history the audience knows with the immediate ignorance of the characters for comedic effect is a great skill of his. (I'm paraphrasing, but "Television will just be a parlor trick for rich people"/ "These kids will never make it out of Jersey"). Creating villains (or at least opposition) based on the knowledge of the audience in this way makes the audience feel powerful and involved, and I feel like McAnuff spotlights this in both productions.
The cinematic momentum... the racing around of many minor characters to create different environments... even the two level set with the area on the lower level upstage center that is removed at certain times. I don't know exactly how to articulate this, but I've tried my best. Did anyone else have any of the same thoughts?

---