Rating: 
Summary: Science can even explain the darkness in the human soul?
Review: 'Copenhagen' is a history play - it charts those first, exciting decades of the 20th century, when the arcane sphere of theoretical physics reorganised the way perception was perceived, and focuses on two of its totemic figures - the half-Jewish Dane Nils Bohr, originator of quantum theory, and his protege, the German Werner Heisenberg, formulator of the uncertainty principle - and the relation of their work to the literally earth-shattering events around them: the fall-out of the Great War; the rise of Nazism; World War Two and Hitler's occupation of Europe, including Bohr's Denmark; the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. It is a story about what it was like to live in occupied Europe, to work for a fascist regime, to watch your beloved country bombed to smithereens, to be aware of death camps as you cavil over mathematics.'Copenhagan' is a mystery play - the central narrative is a labyrinthine enquiry into what exactly happened on that night in September, 1941, when Heisenberg, now head of the German nuclear programme, paid a mysterious visit to the Bohrs, just before the race laws were about to be enforced. Did he want Bohr's help? His approval? Information on the Allied atomic project? But it is also a perverted mystery play in the old medieval sense, a dark, emblematic representation of biblical events for an age in which religion has died, civilisation teeters on the brink, and scientists become Gods and popes. 'Copenhagan' is a philosophical play - it asks how a theoretical physics flagged as restoring humanism (by returning individual perception/point-of-view - relativity - to a conception of the universe) could lead to the atomic bomb and the mass murder of millions. About how the rarefied abstractions of physics had such devastating effects in practice. About who should share more guilt - the ambitious man who collaborated with the Nazis but technically had no blood on his fingers, or the decent humanist who spiritually guided the Los Alamos project. 'Copenhagan' is a play about three human beings puzzling over the past and their relations to one another - as you might expect from a work set in Denmark by an English writer, the shade of Hamlet hovers, in the story of a young man agonising over whether or not to act, his fraught relationship with his 'parents', and his acknowledgement of the darkness residing in the human soul. Like 'Hamlet', 'Copenhagan' is a ghost story, in this case crossed with Sartre's 'Huis Clos', with three phantoms condemned to each other's company and uncertainty as to what exactly did happen on that September night in 1941. But mostly, 'Copenhagan' is a play about science, and fearlessly showcases the most abstruse theories and theorems ever conjured. A boffin friend assures me that the play's structure, the way characters move around the stage, the patterning of their actions, the set itself, the shaping of the narrative (an endless circling through time and space around an elusive mystery) are all masterly transpositions (and undercutting) of both men's theories to the form of drama. Works about ideas and science can be dry, deadly things in the hands o a Shaw or Wells, but here science becomes poetry, with an integrity of meaning of its own, but also a fluid, ever-shifting fund of figurative language and ideas, taking theoretical physics a third step, having undergone theory and practice. Science here is no longer the elitist jargon of sinister power-players, but a bleakly eloquent interpretation of our own lives, our relation to the past, family, work, history, responsibility. Like a dull amateur scientist, I have separated some of the elements that go into making Michael Frayn's 'Copenhagan' such an exhausting but exhilirating play, but it is in their interplay, their elision, their interconnectedness that its beauty and resonance lies.
Rating:
Summary: Original, clever
Review: A fascinating work which explores, as the cover notes point out, "how we can ever know why we do what we do." This is a study of Nazi era European politics, human nature, free will, and a refresher course on nuclear physics wrapped up in one thin volume. I haven't seen the work performed, but the work relies almost entirely on dialogue so I enjoyed reading the script even though I haven't seen it in person. The plot revolves around a fanciful posthumous dialogue between Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, and Bohr's wife Margrethe. The subject of their conversation: Heisenberg's 1941 trip to visit Bohr in Copenhagen when both men work working on the atomic bomb - Bohr for the Allied forces and Heisenberg for the Axis. An excellent script.....a short but challenging work which examines the uncertainty principle as it applies both in physics and in human affairs. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: NO UNCERTAINTY IN MY RECOMMENDATION
Review: After viewing this play in London, I could hardly wait to get my hands on the "script" to study its contents more deeply. This book will excite anyone interested in the parallels between theoretical physics and the evolution of consciousness studies. This drama explores the Uncertainty Principle as applied to all dimensions of human interaction. Want'a take a ride? This book's for you.
Rating:
Summary: Deserves a reading
Review: COPENHAGEN is a play that welcomes a reading. The structure of pure dialogue between the physicists, Heisenberg, Bohr and Bohr's wife Margrethe( who represents the non-physicists in the audience) lends itself to the closer examination the written word gives us. Michael Frayn brilliantly imagines a moment frozen in time- Heisenberg arrives from Germany in 1941 to discuss something with his mentor, Bohr in occupied Copenhagen. Seizing upon this historical event and its mysterious circumstances, Frayn recreates the event from a variety of perspectives in pursuit of a greater truth. Was Heisenberg a hero, who kept the Nazi's from achieving the ultimate weapon, or a victim of his own carelessness?
Reading the play, gives you the time to reflect upon how creatively Frayn frames each of his scenarios. The dialogue is never less than challenging, even while playing to the audience surrogate, Margrethe. Frayn uses these two great minds to introduce the audience into the realm of advanced physics and the moral ambiguities involved in the mixing of pure science with the nature of war. The forced civility between the two men emphasizes the underlying current of terror created by the Nazis rise to power and the oncoming dawn of an atomic age. Frayn does not offer any easy answers, to do so would be an insult to the wonderful work that has gone on before.
The postscript alone is worth the price of the book for any fan of the play. It sets up the historical context for the play's creation and gives the reader a much greater understanding of where Frayn came up with many of the issues he examines in this work.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Play!
Review: Copenhagen is one of the best plays I've seen - it makes you think and challenges you as a theatregoer. Reading the text gave me a greater insight into the minds of the characters, and I'm looking forward to seeing the play again, now that I've read it.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating questions on intentions, uncertainty, "truth"
Review: History is often clouded in uncertainty. Such is the case with Heisenberg's visit to Copenhagen while under the control of Nazi Germany. What were his reasons for the visit? Did he try to warn Niels Bohr of the german attempts to build their version of the atomic bomb? Did he try to find out how far the Manhatten Project had developped already? Did he propose sabotage to both of these projects, as a means to stop armageddon? What were his intentions? The play offers us three versions of Heisenbergs visit as the "ghosts" of Heisenberg, Bohr and his wife remember it. It does not give a definite answer, but leaves all the relevant questions open. There is a beautiful coupling between the physical work of these two scientists - especially the famous "uncertainty principle" of Heisenberg, which states that you can never know both velocity and position of a particle - and the theme of the play. What happened in Copenhagen is also uncertain. Frayn manages to create a wonderful resonance between the physical uncertainty principle and the undeterminable historic "truth". The play poses some very important questions, such as whether a scientist should feel responsible for the consequences his scientific work has, whether actually building the atomic bomb for the Nazis can be morally justified, and, the obvious one, what Heisenberg's intentions were. It tries to give pointers to answers, but leaves itself open enough for broad discussion. There have been critics that pointed out that Frayn "arranged" the historical facts so this moral dilemma could be created. There are people who say that Frayn got a few (important) details wrong; they claim that this renders the whole play irrelevant because it's "wrong". There are evenhistorians who claim to be able to prove they know what *really* happened in Copenhagen. To these, I say they missed the point. Copenhagen isn't about knowing what really happened, or faithfully recreating the world as it was at the time of the meeting, and getting everything right. In the end, all we have is our own beliefs. The play managed to create a highly engaging discussion, having very interesting characters (Bohr and Heisenberg) argue about fundamental issues of ethics and the nature of intentions. If the play also managed to do that in a fairly convincing recreation of a historical event, so much the better. If you have the chance to see the play, do so. And if you know just a little about the physics involved, you will enjoy it even more.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic to watch on stage
Review: I already knew the scientific background and the theory, before I went to see the play in London, not having read the book. It was a fantastic experience, and it was afterwards that I bought the book of the play, so that I could recall those special scenes.
Rating:
Summary: Uncertainty - in physics, morality, and history
Review: I saw the PBS production of Copenhagen starring Daniel Craig and Steven Rea. This play is fascinating and (perhaps unintentionally) revisionist - at least I think it is. But I'm not sure. And that's the point - the pervasiveness of uncertainty - everywhere - especially in human motives. Though I'm not always sure what author Steven Freyn intended - I like much of what he created. Copenhagen is about a 1941 meeting between Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg - old friends now grown into highly successful theoretical physicists - Bohr with the Allies, and Heisenberg with Germany. The play portrays the meeting from three points of view. The first point of view is that of Margrethe Bohr. Her view both bores and offends me. It is the product of modern political correctness - anti-German to the point of racist; Jews as the central focus of WW2; morally self-righteous despite a privileged life as the wife of a leading scientist. It was nothing more than I could read in the New York Times or see on the History Channel every week. Much more nuanced was the point of view of Neils Bohr. He was never quite sure what Heisenberg was after. And his probing questions leaves us wondering if Heisenberg really knew what he wanted. Werner Heisenberg's memory segment was wonderful. He came to Copenhagen to suggest to Bohr that perhaps the two of them could forestall the development of the atomic bomb. Heisenberg, ostensibly representative of scientific absolutism, was full of moral uncertainty - Bohr, ostensibly a scientific relativist, represents the modern point of view - universal moral absolutism. Heisenberg never built the bomb. We are left unsure as to why - but he is portrayed as a man who was clearly not comfortable with this product of his physics. Bohr seems to have no such qualms, either about building the bomb or its subsequent use. At the core of this play is the struggle between Western and Eastern epistemologies - the former depicting a universe external to man, the latter depicting a universe always relative to man the observer. Contradiction permeates this play. For example - though Heisenberg was the lead scientist in a state dedicated to the Western point of view, nothing better exemplifies the Eastern view of science than Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Although modern history damns Germany, it is the Werner Heisenberg who came to Copenhagen wanting peace - and never found it. It was the Allies' Neils Bohr, godfather to the Manhattan Project and his team of physicists under Oppenheimer who built and bear responsibility for the atomic bomb. Several remarkable elements of this play are 1) the revisionist depiction of Werner Heisenberg as a man who loved his country, his family, and his homeland. That depiction should not be revisionist except that even now, 60 years after WW2, depictions of German humanity are still politically incorrect. 2) The wonderful scenes in which the two scientists argue the philosophy of their science. 3) The terrific direction - in which the two men behave like elementary particles - sometimes mutually attractive, sometime repulsive; circling about each other. 4) The use of the inner voice to depict doubt and uncertainty. See this play.
Rating:
Summary: Uncertainty - in physics, morality, and history
Review: I saw the PBS production of Copenhagen starring Daniel Craig and Steven Rea. This play is fascinating and (perhaps unintentionally) revisionist - at least I think it is. But I'm not sure. And that's the point - the pervasiveness of uncertainty - everywhere - especially in human motives. Though I'm not always sure what author Steven Freyn intended - I like much of what he created. Copenhagen is about a 1941 meeting between Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg - old friends now grown into highly successful theoretical physicists - Bohr with the Allies, and Heisenberg with Germany. The play portrays the meeting from three points of view. The first point of view is that of Margrethe Bohr. Her view both bores and offends me. It is the product of modern political correctness - anti-German to the point of racist; Jews as the central focus of WW2; morally self-righteous despite a privileged life as the wife of a leading scientist. It was nothing more than I could read in the New York Times or see on the History Channel every week. Much more nuanced was the point of view of Neils Bohr. He was never quite sure what Heisenberg was after. And his probing questions leaves us wondering if Heisenberg really knew what he wanted. Werner Heisenberg's memory segment was wonderful. He came to Copenhagen to suggest to Bohr that perhaps the two of them could forestall the development of the atomic bomb. Heisenberg, ostensibly representative of scientific absolutism, was full of moral uncertainty - Bohr, ostensibly a scientific relativist, represents the modern point of view - universal moral absolutism. Heisenberg never built the bomb. We are left unsure as to why - but he is portrayed as a man who was clearly not comfortable with this product of his physics. Bohr seems to have no such qualms, either about building the bomb or its subsequent use. At the core of this play is the struggle between Western and Eastern epistemologies - the former depicting a universe external to man, the latter depicting a universe always relative to man the observer. Contradiction permeates this play. For example - though Heisenberg was the lead scientist in a state dedicated to the Western point of view, nothing better exemplifies the Eastern view of science than Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Although modern history damns Germany, it is the Werner Heisenberg who came to Copenhagen wanting peace - and never found it. It was the Allies' Neils Bohr, godfather to the Manhattan Project and his team of physicists under Oppenheimer who built and bear responsibility for the atomic bomb. Several remarkable elements of this play are 1) the revisionist depiction of Werner Heisenberg as a man who loved his country, his family, and his homeland. That depiction should not be revisionist except that even now, 60 years after WW2, depictions of German humanity are still politically incorrect. 2) The wonderful scenes in which the two scientists argue the philosophy of their science. 3) The terrific direction - in which the two men behave like elementary particles - sometimes mutually attractive, sometime repulsive; circling about each other. 4) The use of the inner voice to depict doubt and uncertainty. See this play.
Rating: 
Summary: Nice.
Review: I wanted to read this book for quite a while coz I had heard a lot about it. Reading it was fun. But, I was not blown away. I was more intrigued than impressed. Now, I really want to read more about Heisenberg. The postscript in the book already discusses the various views about the actual purpose of Heisenbergs visit in 1941. But, it seems that there is no hard proof validating that he really slowed the german nuclear porgram or that he said that he did so just to cover up for his failure to make the bomb. I really want to see the actual drama. Seems like that was a lot of fun. The book is a dialogue between Heisenberg, Bohr and his wife about Heisenbergs 1941 visit to copenhagen. It goes very fast and MF does a great job in bringing out most of the speculations about that visit - ethical, personal or moral. This visit was kind of important coz it was in the middle of the war and both Heisenberg and Bohr were on opposite sides. If you have any fascination for physics or the history of physics in the early half of the 1900s, you will like this one.
| 
