Copenhagen has ratings and reviews. Manny said: So what did you think?- I liked it! A lot of really interesting historical stuff about the. More information has come to light, since Michael Frayn’s play premiered in , about its subject: the ruptured friendship between the. New Vic, Newcastle-under-LymeMichael Frayn’s career-high play challenges classical drama as surely as its two scientist lead characters do.
In fact, it seems to have been offered up, quite post-hoc, as an explanation while the German scientists were being interred at Farm Hall and trying to grapple with the meaning of Hiroshima. Are they milling about as ghosts among others? 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 Co I’m kind of fascinated by the history of science, in particular by the lives of the various actors involved.
Frayn’s cunning conceit is to use the scientific underpinnings of atomic physics, from Schr?
Copenhagen (play) – Wikipedia
Heisenberg — “No one understands my trip to Copenhagen. Unfortunately, because of Heisenberg’s concerns about being monitored — his discussion of any details of Germany’s nuclear efforts with someone in an occupied country would have been illegal — his remarks were cryptic.
But even for its success, Frayn admitted in an article that “A number of commentators expressed misgivings about the whole enterprise.
Their fascination in playing with the new toy blinds them to the danger that it poses. Michael Frayn works to keep this distinction as small as possible. A line that Margrethe speaks on page 73 touched me. Archived from the original on 10 December Drama is about complementarity.
Return to Book Page. What about Schrodinger’s cat?
As Heisenberg wrote to Jungk. Thanks for telling us about the problem.
Or was he simply unable to do the right calculations in time, despite his genius? Copenhagen is a play by Michael Fraynbased on an event that occurred in Copenhagen ina meeting between the physicists Niels Bohr and Copebhagen Heisenberg.
So the play has had a remarkably large role in my early interest in nuclear history. This is a much more insidious sort of erroneous history, in my mind, because it is used to paper over the moral questions on the American side of things, and commits a multitude of factual sins in the process.
Indeed, Bohr’s letters note that Heisenberg spoke “in vague terms”, from which Bohr was only able to form an “impression” about Heisenberg’s efforts. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. The amount of vitriol was impressive. The spirits of Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and Bohr’s wife Margrethe, meet after their deaths to attempt to answer the question that Margrethe poses in the first line of the play, “Why did he [Heisenberg] come to Copenhagen?
Bohr had concluded that they would have both drowned had he jumped in to save his son, and this presents an idea of futile heroics, particularly with reference to Heisenberg and what should happen if he were to resist Hitler’s rule.
I also couldn’t help but think that surely Frayn was taking huge liberties with the “science” behind these theories, if not altogether explaining things wrongly. This blog began in For further information, please Drama on 3: I wanted to suggest with Copenhagen that there is some kind of parallel between the indeterminacy of human thinking, and the indeterminacy that Heisenberg introduced into physics with his famous Uncertainty Principle.
Bohr wrote of this:. Jan 13, Laura rated it really liked it Recommends it for: But in his Tony Award-winning play Copenhagen, Michael Frayn shows us that these men were passionate, p For most people, the principles of nuclear physics are not only incomprehensible but inhuman. We can [in theory] never know everything about human thinking. One character’s line might fade into the next, as though the second person knew exactly what he was going to say; sometimes a character will slip into a memory and partially relive a former or younger self in a monologue; and over the course of the show, there is a definite ambiguity as to whether they are speaking to one another or to the audience.
Bernstein, “Heisenberg and the Critical Mass,” Am. The answer almost certainly lies in the gray area between those possibilities, and 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.
Arguably Oppenheimer would not have been a good pick either, had their not been a Groves. The New Vic has had the bright idea of mounting it as part of a Frayn mini-season, in tandem with the more user-friendly Alphabetical Order. 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’.
Gleefully grabbed by one of the people I went with before I could blink, so I hope that gives you an idea of how dense and yet magnetic this play is. Jungk published an extract from the letter in the Danish edition of the book in which, out of context, made it look as if Heisenberg was claiming to have sabotaged the German bomb project on moral grounds. There are several instances when the two physicists start speaking too scientifically for many people to understand, and one of frsyn will remark that they must revert to plain language, to explain it in a way that Margrethe will understand.
Yes, that can’t be accidental. Refresh and try again. Interesting subject, first act was much better than the second, I thought fgayn author was trying too hard to make quantum mechanics match the possibilities of what happened at Bohr’s home. The lack of stage directions made it hard to picture what was happening sometimes. Heisenberg historians fragn divided over their own interpretations of the event. It is fun to think about coepnhagen gratifying to imagine.
Bohr, infuriated that Heisenberg might be saying such a thing, wrote a strongly-worded language arguing for the opposite. After dinner, the two of them went for a walk and had fran conversation about the point of Heisenberg’s visit. Jul 21, Bob Nichols rated it liked it.