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.
|Published (Last):||19 November 2005|
|PDF File Size:||20.7 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.2 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This is just a shit version of Arcadia which, in hindsight, isn’t really that good of a play either. It is a subjective world, taking and manipulating history, picking apart some events and mashing others together to better compare them.
The science is served up well and utilized well, in support of the material. Margrethe is there in the way that all the other people in the world are attempting to explain his behavior”, says Frayn. I actually like the play a lot.
This is the essence of the conflict that two eminent scientists with giant leap contributions to modern physics find themselves embroiled with.
Margrethe is there to ask questions on our behalf, to make them explain their science “in plain language” cause she, though an intelligent lady, wasn’t a physicist herself and to represent public opinion while Bohr adored Heisenberg, “she always had a much more negative view of him and she was particularly suspicious of that meeting in This is an interesting play.
Yes, that can’t be accidental. Margrethe Bohr isn’t very happy with Heisenberg, while Bohr can be seduced by his scientific brilliance. To Bohr himself, and Margrethe. Because the American case is the anomaly, not the German case. These questions, often without saying so explicitly, tend to stem from one source these days: It is, perhaps, more of a testament to the theatre to get people at least some people thinking about history than one might typically suspect — that Americans think about Hiroshima is perhaps as it ought to be, that they think about Copenhagen is far more curious.
Feb 18, Gumble’s Yard rated it really liked it Shelves: 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. His works often raise philosophical questions in a humorous context.
One of my last acts at Berkeley was to design the cover for an excellent volume of historical essays on the play. What about Schrodinger’s cat?
They are also used to suggest Heisenberg’s speed and recklessness which contrasts with Bohr’s caution and tediousness. It also abandons the cooenhagen staging of the theatrical version in favour of being set in the city of Copenhagen, in Bohr’s old house.
Frayn isn’t attempting to write history, and many of the issues he raises are as valid as they would be even if he got every historical aspect of the play wrong. If there is any weakness, or disappointing aspect to the play, it is the history — or rather, the fact that so much is made of it.
It was about relationships. It is not a clear statement for or against a bomb to mention an experimental reactor design — you can interpret it multiple ways, depending on what one thinks Heisenberg was trying to accomplish e.
Copenhagen – Michael Frayn
The Bohr letters released in are an example of this. Copenhagen has only three characters — the two scientists and Bohr’s wife. Jan 13, Laura rated it really liked it Recommends it for: Had their schedule been off by a few months, there would have been no atomic bombs ready for use during World War II, and the Manhattan Project still holds the world fran for fastest time between deciding to make a nuclear weapon and actually having one.
It leaves up in the air whether Heisenberg was trying to sabotage consciously or notnichael it seem that this is as equally plausible an interpretation as any other.
Copenhagen, by Michael Frayn :: Center for Science, Technology, Medicine, & Society
Heisenberg made some technical errors, but he was not the only one on copsnhagen project. I have no actual proof of this, just my cynicism coming out about how often people use science wrongly in order to feed their human agendas Books by Michael Frayn. Because Heisenberg could only visit Bohr in occupied Denmark on behalf of the German government, Heisenberg was obliged to make public lectures on behalf of the Government which were monitored by German government officials.
This can be misleading. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. The place in history is complex and mirrored. The lack of stage directions made it hard to picture what was happening sometimes. I’m your enemy; I’m also your friend. I noticed tears in your eyes at one point.
Copenhagen review – Michael Frayn’s masterwork still blazes with mystery
If you’re interested in history of science and WW2, especially physics and atomic bomb, I can’t recommend it highly enough. Heisenberg tried to convey his opinions later during private discussions with Bohr.
And I just had no idea about Heisenberg’s involvement in the Nazi nuclear project. They feared over-promising with regards to a risky endeavor. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Sep 04, Nicki rated it liked it Shelves: To this Heisenberg replies later in the same conversation – don’t assume my need to defend my country is any weaker just because I know it is in the wrong.