Copenhagen has ratings and reviews. But in his Tony Award- winning play Copenhagen, Michael Frayn shows us that these men were passionate. In Michael Frayn’s Copenhagen, a fictional account of an actual event during World War II, two physicists exchange heated words and profound. A review, and links to other information about and reviews of Copenhagen by Michael Frayn.

Author: Tojora Kanris
Country: Monaco
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Politics
Published (Last): 17 November 2004
Pages: 140
PDF File Size: 5.79 Mb
ePub File Size: 1.22 Mb
ISBN: 480-8-43549-444-6
Downloads: 17194
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Nigal

The complete review ‘s Review:. Sep 19, Reuben rated it did not like it Shelves: And the screenplay includes an excellent page non-fiction history of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg.

What did Heisenberg and Bohr talk about in ? Open Preview See a Problem?

Copenhagen review – Michael Frayn’s masterwork still blazes with mystery | Stage | The Guardian

It leaves up in the air whether Heisenberg was trying to sabotage consciously or notmaking it seem that this is as equally plausible copenhayen interpretation as any other. Not like books or movies though, the theatre often feels more real since I share the same space as the actors.

To interrogators and intelligence officers, to journalists and historians. One rooted in a controversial act of war, the other in a controversial piece of theatre. Please note that these ratings solely represent copenhxgen complete review ‘s biased interpretation and subjective opinion of the actual reviews and do not claim to accurately reflect or represent the views of the reviewers.

Copenhagen by Michael Frayn

All we can do is to look afterwards, and see what happened. But even with translation in mind, Frayn defends that the words in the script are those that the characters would actually say. For Valentine’s Day, Jesse gave me an uninterrupted hour to read Copenhagen fray write the review.

It’s like, what do you call it – – The Principle of Complementarity. Heisenberg and Bohr in Copenhagen in the early s. Copenhagen has only three characters — the two scientists and Bohr’s wife.


Sometimes one character will not notice that there are other people in the space, and speak as if to no one.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I’ll come back and write a proper review for the book once I manage to disentangle my thoughts on it. Benedict Cumberbatch, Greta Scacchi and Simon Russell Beale star in Michael Frayn’s award-winning play about the controversial meeting between physicists Bohr and Heisenberg, part of a joint Radio 3 and Radio 4 series of three Michael Frayn dramas for radio – including new adaptations of his novels, ‘Skios’ and ‘Headlong’.


The popular image of the men who made the bomb is of vrayn intellects who number-crunched their way towards a weapon whose devastating power they could not even imagine.

Frayn’s great success is in his presentation of the material: It was jarring at first. In any case, the point is simple enough: Now no one can be hurt, now no one copenhaen be betrayed. The answer almost certainly lies in the gray area between those possibilities, copennagen it’s that ambiguity in Heisenberg’s mind and character that Frayn so eloquently explores, both in his play and in a long, expansive bibliographical essay that lays out many of the uncertainties in Heisenberg’s motivations and the factors that led him to seek out Bohr for that last disastrous conversation that might have had such a tremendous impact on world history.

People trying their best to be decent human beings when all they have are bad choices. It can also be thought to exist “inside the heads” of the characters present. While books can help me enter the world of the story, and temporarily leave my own life, being a theatre buff can also bring meaning into my life as well.

This is not what most historians see in the historical record. Damn, you’re still giving me that look. The characters reminisce, after a fashion, and replay some of the events.

Jul 21, Bob Nichols rated it liked it. Or thinks he frany. While books can help me enter the world of the story, and temporarily leave my own life, being a theatre buff c If you’re into stuff like this, you can read the full review. These questions, often without saying so explicitly, tend to stem from one source these days: I was wondering if I could kiss you.

You can unsubscribe anytime. Supek’s statements about Bohr’s recollection of “the Bohr — Heisenberg meeting” mixes up the visit. This is the essence of the conflict that two eminent scientists with giant leap contributions to modern physics find themselves embroiled with. A writer for The Commonweal commented on the Broadway premiere, saying that “the play’s relentless cerebral forays can If your dramatised version of a historical event is less interesting, less juicy, than the actual event, then you’ve completely failed in trying to turn it into art.


Are you a wave or a particle? Well, I shall be happy to make one more attempt. They were brilliant minds, lofty and untouchable to the likes of me. Frayn’s cunning conceit is to use the scientific underpinnings of atomic physics, from Schr?

One meeting is generally not the stuff that history is made of. They feared over-promising with regards to a risky endeavor. Maybe the play shows me a different perspective of the world that I did not notice before. But above all they were human, with all the requisite failings and ambiguities, and when considered as such they become so much more fascinating — which is why I picked up Copenhagenbeing as it is a play about the meeting between the previously close associates Bohr and Heisenberg, on opposing sides of the war at the time, at the eponymous location.

I think the main response from historians that you are likely to get is: For the moment the only coherent thing I can say is: How we know why people do what they do, and even how one knows what one does oneself. As for Heisenberg, the man who could have built the bomb but somehow failed to, his dilemma is at the heart of the play’s conflict.

That my silence and gravity, as you write in the letter, could be taken as an expression of shock at your reports that it was possible to make an atomic bomb is a quite peculiar misunderstanding, which must be due to the great tension in your own mind.