What do you think?
Rate this book
Copenhagen
For most people, the principles of nuclear physics are not only incomprehensible but inhuman. The popular image of the men who made the bomb is of dispassionate intellects who number-crunched their way towards a weapon whose devastating power they could not even imagine. But in his Tony Award-winning play Copenhagen, Michael Frayn shows us that these men were passionate, philosophical, and all too human, even though one of the three historical figures in his drama, Werner Heisenberg, was the head of the Nazis' effort to develop a nuclear weapon. The play's other two characters, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr and his wife, Margrethe, are involved with Heisenberg in an after-death analysis of an actual meeting that has long puzzled historians. In 1941, the German scientist visited Bohr, his old mentor and long-time friend, in Copenhagen. After a brief discussion in the Bohrs' home, the two men went for a short walk. What they discussed on that walk, and its implications for both scientists, have long been a mystery, even though both scientists gave (conflicting) accounts in later years. Frayn's cunning conceit is to use the scientific underpinnings of atomic physics, from Schr?dinger's famous cat to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, to explore how an individual's point of view renders attempts to discover the ultimate truth of any human interaction fundamentally impossible. To Margrethe, Heisenberg was always an untrustworthy student, eager to steal from her husband's knowledge. To Bohr, Heisenberg was a brilliant if irresponsible foster son, whose lack of moral compass was part of his genius. 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. Frayn's clever dramatic structure, which returns repeatedly to particular scenes from different points of view, allows several possible theories as to what his motives could have been. This isn't the first play to successfully merge the world
132 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
141 people are currently reading
3740 people want to read
About the author
Michael Frayn
113 books268 followersMichael Frayn is an English playwright and novelist. He is best known as the author of the farce Noises Off and the dramas Copenhagen and Democracy. His novels, such as Towards the End of the Morning, Headlong and Spies, have also been critical and commercial successes, making him one of the handful of writers in the English language to succeed in both drama and prose fiction. His works often raise philosophical questions in a humorous context. Frayn's wife is Claire Tomalin, the biographer and literary journalist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 449 reviews
August 11, 2020
Quantum Ethics
Intentions maketh the man - in love, life, and war. Well perhaps not. Who knows anyone’s genuine motives, especially one’s own. Our reasons for acting the way we do involve telling a story. Stories justify intentions as rational, beneficial, necessary, or just plain good. But whose story? All stories are arbitrary, or at least incomplete. And they’re all told after the fact. Stories require a point of view which can only be adopted after the consequences of action have emerged. So how compelling are these stories about intentions?
Sometimes, as in Quantum Physics, different, fundamentally incompatible, stories appear necessary to account for what happens - Wave vs. Particle stories for example. Quantum physics raises the question of what is real in the physical world. Analogously, Copenhagen, raises the same issue of reality in the moral world. Frayn uses multiple fictional dialogues between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in 1941, with Bohr’s wife in a role of moderator, as a way to investigate this reality.
Formerly intimate friends, Bohr and Heisenberg found themselves mortal enemies after Germany invaded Denmark in 1940. Both had been instrumental in the discovery of the possibility of nuclear fission, and therefore the the atomic bomb. The purpose of their meeting, initiated by Heisenberg, has always been somewhat mysterious. Frayn uses the confusions of memory and possible misinterpretations of both men to invent his own story about the meeting.
Scientists like Bohr and Heisenberg tend to tell their stories about the physical world in multiple drafts that are then critiqued by their colleagues. So Frayn has them do this dramatically about their own intentions. The first draft is purely professional, all about scientific necessity and the analytic challenges of quantum theory. Intellectual importance, the interests of science, the dignity of humankind are the sorts of motives at hand. Pragmatics, in other words - the theory was useful; it worked. But do these motives work to explain the phenomena of their own behaviour?
The second draft opens the possibility of personal ambition. This version involves a considerable degree of self-rationalisation and putting the best possible gloss on matters of faded memory. Personal reputation, fears, jealousies, and antipathies emerge as things far more important than science or the advance of knowledge. But who can be sure of the combined effects of these hidden emotions. Many of these emotions may be unconsciously harboured and never reach the level of articulate thought. A principle of moral uncertainty emerges: Can we be aware of these motives and act on them at the same time?
The third draft includes the ‘bigger picture’, like involvement in non-scientific ethics - other things that were done, or prevented from being done during the war, that point to justification of one’s actions. Influence rather than direct undertaking is what’s relevant here. Therefore actions are more difficult to pin down as the origin of a chain of events, a chain reaction, indicating an overall programme. Intention becomes murky; and its justification even murkier. Can moral reality be described as a sort of quantum entanglement among events or is it a profoundly artificial abstraction of a sociological system?
It is clear that Copenhagen highlights the issue of scientific ethics. What isn’t clear is what contribution it makes to either the debate or the moral thinking of individual scientists. Heisenberg worked to help a homicidal maniac. Bohr worked to stop that maniac and participated in killing several hundred thousand Japanese as a result. Both men enabled a global reign of terror that persists. Is there an ethic in this story which makes sense?
So, uncertainty rules everywhere. However it is Margarethe, Bohr’s wife, who sees through the male logic and understands the central moral import of the situation. “If it’s Heisenberg at the centre of the universe,” she says, “then the one bit of the universe that he can’t see is Heisenberg.” Ethics come from elsewhere; we can’t trust ourselves with the burden. Who else to trust, therefore, is the critical question.
Intentions maketh the man - in love, life, and war. Well perhaps not. Who knows anyone’s genuine motives, especially one’s own. Our reasons for acting the way we do involve telling a story. Stories justify intentions as rational, beneficial, necessary, or just plain good. But whose story? All stories are arbitrary, or at least incomplete. And they’re all told after the fact. Stories require a point of view which can only be adopted after the consequences of action have emerged. So how compelling are these stories about intentions?
Sometimes, as in Quantum Physics, different, fundamentally incompatible, stories appear necessary to account for what happens - Wave vs. Particle stories for example. Quantum physics raises the question of what is real in the physical world. Analogously, Copenhagen, raises the same issue of reality in the moral world. Frayn uses multiple fictional dialogues between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in 1941, with Bohr’s wife in a role of moderator, as a way to investigate this reality.
Formerly intimate friends, Bohr and Heisenberg found themselves mortal enemies after Germany invaded Denmark in 1940. Both had been instrumental in the discovery of the possibility of nuclear fission, and therefore the the atomic bomb. The purpose of their meeting, initiated by Heisenberg, has always been somewhat mysterious. Frayn uses the confusions of memory and possible misinterpretations of both men to invent his own story about the meeting.
Scientists like Bohr and Heisenberg tend to tell their stories about the physical world in multiple drafts that are then critiqued by their colleagues. So Frayn has them do this dramatically about their own intentions. The first draft is purely professional, all about scientific necessity and the analytic challenges of quantum theory. Intellectual importance, the interests of science, the dignity of humankind are the sorts of motives at hand. Pragmatics, in other words - the theory was useful; it worked. But do these motives work to explain the phenomena of their own behaviour?
The second draft opens the possibility of personal ambition. This version involves a considerable degree of self-rationalisation and putting the best possible gloss on matters of faded memory. Personal reputation, fears, jealousies, and antipathies emerge as things far more important than science or the advance of knowledge. But who can be sure of the combined effects of these hidden emotions. Many of these emotions may be unconsciously harboured and never reach the level of articulate thought. A principle of moral uncertainty emerges: Can we be aware of these motives and act on them at the same time?
The third draft includes the ‘bigger picture’, like involvement in non-scientific ethics - other things that were done, or prevented from being done during the war, that point to justification of one’s actions. Influence rather than direct undertaking is what’s relevant here. Therefore actions are more difficult to pin down as the origin of a chain of events, a chain reaction, indicating an overall programme. Intention becomes murky; and its justification even murkier. Can moral reality be described as a sort of quantum entanglement among events or is it a profoundly artificial abstraction of a sociological system?
It is clear that Copenhagen highlights the issue of scientific ethics. What isn’t clear is what contribution it makes to either the debate or the moral thinking of individual scientists. Heisenberg worked to help a homicidal maniac. Bohr worked to stop that maniac and participated in killing several hundred thousand Japanese as a result. Both men enabled a global reign of terror that persists. Is there an ethic in this story which makes sense?
So, uncertainty rules everywhere. However it is Margarethe, Bohr’s wife, who sees through the male logic and understands the central moral import of the situation. “If it’s Heisenberg at the centre of the universe,” she says, “then the one bit of the universe that he can’t see is Heisenberg.” Ethics come from elsewhere; we can’t trust ourselves with the burden. Who else to trust, therefore, is the critical question.
August 17, 2025
Bohr: But the question is always, What does the mathematics mean, in plain language? What are the philosophical implications?
Michael Frayn tries to explore the personal aspects of Heisenberg's visit to the Bohr couple during the second world war in the play Copenhagen, delving into the psyche of the three people each with their own interpretations of the events leading up to the atomic bomb.
Heisenberg: Bohr, I have to know! I’m the one who has to decide! If the Allies are building a bomb, what am I choosing for my country? You said it would be easy to imagine that one might have less love for one’s country if it’s small and defenceless. Yes, and it would be another easy mistake to make, to think that one loved one’s country less because it happened to be in the wrong.
Copenhagen is both the discussion of the quantum mechanical principles and breakthroughs in the early 20th century as well as the personal motivations and interests of the people involved. I've enjoyed both watching the play performed when I was younger and reading it recently in more detail. The play discusses (and shows) not just the events of those years, but also the characters and their growth brilliantly.
Margrethe (Bohr): Because everything is personal! You’ve just read us all a lecture about it! You know how much Heisenberg wanted a chair. You know the pressure he was under from his family. I’m sorry, but you want to make everything seem heroically abstract and logical. And when you tell the story, yes, it all falls into place, it all has a beginning and a middle and an end. But I was there, and when I remember what it was like I’m there still, and I look around me and what I see isn’t a story! It’s confusion and rage and jealousy and tears and no one knowing what things mean or which way they’re going to go.
As a quantum physicist, I appreciated the discussion of the breakthroughs in the field at the time and what came to be known as the Copenhagen interpretation, but more than that, I was riveted by the human perspective of the occurrences and actions, showing that science is never completely detached from us, our lives and our choices. Recommended for anyone who enjoys philosophical discussions - the morality and ethics of advances in science and technology, and what human do with it.
Margrethe: That was the last and greatest demand that Heisenberg made on his friendship with you. To be understood when he couldn’t understand himself. And that was the last and greatest act of friendship for Heisenberg that you performed in return. To leave him misunderstood.
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
[One star for the premise and the whole play; One star for the characters and their perspectives; One star for the plot and discussion of events; One star for the world-building and description of that period; One star for the writing and introspection - Five stars in total.]
Michael Frayn tries to explore the personal aspects of Heisenberg's visit to the Bohr couple during the second world war in the play Copenhagen, delving into the psyche of the three people each with their own interpretations of the events leading up to the atomic bomb.
Heisenberg: Bohr, I have to know! I’m the one who has to decide! If the Allies are building a bomb, what am I choosing for my country? You said it would be easy to imagine that one might have less love for one’s country if it’s small and defenceless. Yes, and it would be another easy mistake to make, to think that one loved one’s country less because it happened to be in the wrong.
Copenhagen is both the discussion of the quantum mechanical principles and breakthroughs in the early 20th century as well as the personal motivations and interests of the people involved. I've enjoyed both watching the play performed when I was younger and reading it recently in more detail. The play discusses (and shows) not just the events of those years, but also the characters and their growth brilliantly.
Margrethe (Bohr): Because everything is personal! You’ve just read us all a lecture about it! You know how much Heisenberg wanted a chair. You know the pressure he was under from his family. I’m sorry, but you want to make everything seem heroically abstract and logical. And when you tell the story, yes, it all falls into place, it all has a beginning and a middle and an end. But I was there, and when I remember what it was like I’m there still, and I look around me and what I see isn’t a story! It’s confusion and rage and jealousy and tears and no one knowing what things mean or which way they’re going to go.
As a quantum physicist, I appreciated the discussion of the breakthroughs in the field at the time and what came to be known as the Copenhagen interpretation, but more than that, I was riveted by the human perspective of the occurrences and actions, showing that science is never completely detached from us, our lives and our choices. Recommended for anyone who enjoys philosophical discussions - the morality and ethics of advances in science and technology, and what human do with it.
Margrethe: That was the last and greatest demand that Heisenberg made on his friendship with you. To be understood when he couldn’t understand himself. And that was the last and greatest act of friendship for Heisenberg that you performed in return. To leave him misunderstood.
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
[One star for the premise and the whole play; One star for the characters and their perspectives; One star for the plot and discussion of events; One star for the world-building and description of that period; One star for the writing and introspection - Five stars in total.]
May 11, 2011
- So what did you think?
- I liked it! A lot of really interesting historical stuff about the Bohr/Heisenberg/Schrödinger triangle. And I just had no idea about Heisenberg's involvement in the Nazi nuclear project. Fascinating. Can't imagine how I missed reading about that earlier.
- Ah, come on George, surely you got more out of it than that?
- Well, okay, okay, it was technically pretty impressive too. The way he uses quantum mechanics as a sustained metaphor throughout. I didn't think he'd be able to pull it off, but it worked. Nice going, Mr. Frayn. Damn, you're still giving me that look.
- George, you know perfectly well that's not what the play was about. It was about relationships. People trying their best to be decent human beings when all they have are bad choices. It was very moving. You just won't admit it.
- Look, it was about quantum mechanics too. Bohr was always sceptical about Heisenberg's matrix algebra, but Heisenberg's line was that if it made the right predictions then it doesn't matter that there's no intuitive interpretation. I thought Frayn was clever to twist it around and apply Heisenberg's reasoning to his own life. I'm not sure you really understood that bit.
- I did so understand it. It wasn't that hard to follow.
- You did?
- Yeah.
- You're pretty bright. For an arts graduate.
- And you've got a lot of emotional intelligence for a scientist. I noticed tears in your eyes at one point.
- Damn. I thought I'd got away with it.
- Look, it's both, isn't it? Science and emotion. Neither one explains the whole story, you have to keep going back and forward between them. It's like, what do you call it -
- The Principle of Complementarity.
- Exactly.
- Hm. You might have a point there. Yes, that can't be accidental. He was smart to do that.
- I was smart to figure it out.
- You were. And, ah, you're kind of beautiful too. I was wondering if I could kiss you.
- I was wondering when you'd ask.
- Mm.
- Mmmm. George?
- Yes?
- I think your place is closer, isn't it?
- I liked it! A lot of really interesting historical stuff about the Bohr/Heisenberg/Schrödinger triangle. And I just had no idea about Heisenberg's involvement in the Nazi nuclear project. Fascinating. Can't imagine how I missed reading about that earlier.
- Ah, come on George, surely you got more out of it than that?
- Well, okay, okay, it was technically pretty impressive too. The way he uses quantum mechanics as a sustained metaphor throughout. I didn't think he'd be able to pull it off, but it worked. Nice going, Mr. Frayn. Damn, you're still giving me that look.
- George, you know perfectly well that's not what the play was about. It was about relationships. People trying their best to be decent human beings when all they have are bad choices. It was very moving. You just won't admit it.
- Look, it was about quantum mechanics too. Bohr was always sceptical about Heisenberg's matrix algebra, but Heisenberg's line was that if it made the right predictions then it doesn't matter that there's no intuitive interpretation. I thought Frayn was clever to twist it around and apply Heisenberg's reasoning to his own life. I'm not sure you really understood that bit.
- I did so understand it. It wasn't that hard to follow.
- You did?
- Yeah.
- You're pretty bright. For an arts graduate.
- And you've got a lot of emotional intelligence for a scientist. I noticed tears in your eyes at one point.
- Damn. I thought I'd got away with it.
- Look, it's both, isn't it? Science and emotion. Neither one explains the whole story, you have to keep going back and forward between them. It's like, what do you call it -
- The Principle of Complementarity.
- Exactly.
- Hm. You might have a point there. Yes, that can't be accidental. He was smart to do that.
- I was smart to figure it out.
- You were. And, ah, you're kind of beautiful too. I was wondering if I could kiss you.
- I was wondering when you'd ask.
- Mm.
- Mmmm. George?
- Yes?
- I think your place is closer, isn't it?
May 27, 2018
همیشه دوست داشتم که درباره گربه شرودینگر یه نمایشنامه بنویسم.
این نمایشنامه رو خوندم، و خب خوشحال شدم که یکی چقدر خوب درباره فیزیک کوانتوم نمایشنامهای نوشته.
اول که میخونی ممکنه یکم خسته شی و نفهمی که ماجرا داره به چه سمتی میره و خب اگه به فیزیک علاقهداشته باشی زیاد مشکلی نداری. شخصیتا درباره فیزیک و مشخصن اختراع بمب اتم حرف میزنن.
ولی ماجرا اونجاییش جالب میشه که این مسائل رو با زندگی قاطی میکنه و آخر نمایشنامه میفهمی که همهی این حرفا واسه چی بوده.
این نمایشنامه رو خوندم، و خب خوشحال شدم که یکی چقدر خوب درباره فیزیک کوانتوم نمایشنامهای نوشته.
اول که میخونی ممکنه یکم خسته شی و نفهمی که ماجرا داره به چه سمتی میره و خب اگه به فیزیک علاقهداشته باشی زیاد مشکلی نداری. شخصیتا درباره فیزیک و مشخصن اختراع بمب اتم حرف میزنن.
ولی ماجرا اونجاییش جالب میشه که این مسائل رو با زندگی قاطی میکنه و آخر نمایشنامه میفهمی که همهی این حرفا واسه چی بوده.
September 3, 2021
I have been listening to a few old plays this weekend and this one really touched me. It’s the story of German physicist Werner Heisenberg’s visit to Danish physicist Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in 1941. The two had worked on quantum mechanics and revolutionized atomic physics in the past, but now the world had changed and the two men were on opposite sides in a world war and Denmark was under German occupation. The story focuses on physics and the atomic bomb, but most of all on relationships and ethics. Two hours well spent.
July 26, 2015
Revisit 2015 comes from watching 'Saboteurs 2015', which is a modern telling of the Telemark/heavy water nail-biting incident.
This TV film of Frayn's play stars Daniel Craig, Francesca Anis, Stephen Rea, superbly done, and fully recommended.
December 21, 2018
برای آدمی که یک زمانی دیوانهی فیزیک نظری و کوانتوم بوده، زیبا و دردناک بود.
نوجوان که بودم، تمام نظریههای مربوط به کوانتوم را خواندهبودم. آن زمان با بمب اتم و پروژهی منهتن آشنا شدم. هر چه لازم بود را خواندم و در نهایت قضاوتی کردم. قهرمانم در پایان، هایزنبرگ بود. به دلیل انسانیت و هوشش. کسی که سالها قبل از متفقین میتوانست بمب را برای هیتلر بسازد اما هیچوقت معادلهی مربوطهاش را حل نکرد. اما در نهایت بمب به دست متفقین و سرپرستی اپن هایمر ساختهشد و با وجود مرگ هزاران نفر به فجیعترین و ترسناک��رین شکل ممکن، هایزنبرگ مطرود شد. وقتی که کتاب را میخواندم از جهات مختلفی در عذاب بودم.
اول یادآوری خود از دست رفتهام! من دیگر آن نوجوان پرشور نیستم.
بعد زیبایی پرشکوه متن؛ مکالمات بور و هایزنبرگ که مثل پدر و پسری بودند که پسر تا لحظات آخر هم به پدر کمک میکند و زمانی که نیاز دارد دستش را بگیرد، همه و حتی همان پدر عزیز به او پشت میکنند. اتفاقی که در ذهنم شبیه خیانت تصویر میشود.
در نهایت درک آن که چرا هایزنبرگ در سال ۱۹۴۱ به دیدار بور رفت. هیچکس نمیداند که دقیق چه اتفاقی افتاد، اما مطمئنم همان تصمیم بود که دنیا را نجات داد.
پ.ن: هایزنبرگ قهرمان کودکی و نوجوانیام بوده؛ حالا هم هست.
نوجوان که بودم، تمام نظریههای مربوط به کوانتوم را خواندهبودم. آن زمان با بمب اتم و پروژهی منهتن آشنا شدم. هر چه لازم بود را خواندم و در نهایت قضاوتی کردم. قهرمانم در پایان، هایزنبرگ بود. به دلیل انسانیت و هوشش. کسی که سالها قبل از متفقین میتوانست بمب را برای هیتلر بسازد اما هیچوقت معادلهی مربوطهاش را حل نکرد. اما در نهایت بمب به دست متفقین و سرپرستی اپن هایمر ساختهشد و با وجود مرگ هزاران نفر به فجیعترین و ترسناک��رین شکل ممکن، هایزنبرگ مطرود شد. وقتی که کتاب را میخواندم از جهات مختلفی در عذاب بودم.
اول یادآوری خود از دست رفتهام! من دیگر آن نوجوان پرشور نیستم.
بعد زیبایی پرشکوه متن؛ مکالمات بور و هایزنبرگ که مثل پدر و پسری بودند که پسر تا لحظات آخر هم به پدر کمک میکند و زمانی که نیاز دارد دستش را بگیرد، همه و حتی همان پدر عزیز به او پشت میکنند. اتفاقی که در ذهنم شبیه خیانت تصویر میشود.
در نهایت درک آن که چرا هایزنبرگ در سال ۱۹۴۱ به دیدار بور رفت. هیچکس نمیداند که دقیق چه اتفاقی افتاد، اما مطمئنم همان تصمیم بود که دنیا را نجات داد.
پ.ن: هایزنبرگ قهرمان کودکی و نوجوانیام بوده؛ حالا هم هست.
November 14, 2021
if you like this review, i now have website: www.michaelkamakana.com
201209 third reading: my father (physical chemist) died 2 March and since then i keep discovering things i would talk to him about, this play is an example. i read it yet again, want to see production sometime, and remember how generally dismissive he usually was about artistic 'takes' on complex physics/chemistry etc though i do not know if i talked to him about this play. his Alzheimer's is fairly degenerate by the time i read it and intellectual abstractions are becoming lost by then. and on the other, my knowledge even of undergrad chemistry is nowhere. on the other other, i have always been curious about, willing to understand, reading some science, listening to some sources, but the key is always to me how the project of science is honourable and durable and never as contingent as my arts...
or so i tell myself. because, of course, science is essentially a human project, with all the usual human qualities and failings, but for me there is always something beautiful that pure ideas- theoretical, disinterested, abstract- can be so fascinating for all one's life. my father always mentioned that the true great innovations leading to Nobels etc came to younger physicists, and he felt he is just never up to that, never as dedicated, so i think of him, when pressed on his career, suggesting 'i think i proved some things...' which may be all enough any scientist can reasonably ask for...
in this play, on the other, the characters investigated are famous and revered physicists, and maybe this is all that artists can do to represent science- as no less than magic, as personalities rather than ideas, as interpersonal conflicts, even with buried generational conflicts between the protagonists (the wife is sort of a chorus)... but reading the notes at the end of the play, extensive, intriguing: does make me wonder more and more how the author is able to even fashion this concise, fascinating, beautiful play...
240318: much later addition: i read this again with somewhat more educated stance, at least in philosophy, and i am again so impressed. this is a memory play, the characters heisenberg, bohr, bohr's wife margarethe, as if recounting this true incident as ghosts, forever trying to understand the other, in thoughts, in acts, but best resolved in metaphoric terms of the 'copenhagen interpretation' of quantum physics and the uncertainty principle and relativity... i have grown up and seen my scientist father and colleagues endeavour to communicate, share, dispute, abstruse physics and can easily imagine these characters doing exactly as they are portrayed. for me this play ranks with 'waiting for godot'...
??? 2000s. first review: now i want to see it produced: tv movie dvd where are you...
second review: i read a critical complaint that the character of heisenberg, musing on the horrors of war inflicted on germany, was rationally convincing himself that this was reason enough to help the nazis and build an atom bomb- and the reviewer was outraged this was not balanced by the horrors the nazis were responsible for, and she castigated the writer frayn for this! but i would argue, this would have been entirely consistent for heisenberg, this could have been his thoughts, which are not those of the writer. this suggests how real the characters become in this excellent play...
201209 third reading: my father (physical chemist) died 2 March and since then i keep discovering things i would talk to him about, this play is an example. i read it yet again, want to see production sometime, and remember how generally dismissive he usually was about artistic 'takes' on complex physics/chemistry etc though i do not know if i talked to him about this play. his Alzheimer's is fairly degenerate by the time i read it and intellectual abstractions are becoming lost by then. and on the other, my knowledge even of undergrad chemistry is nowhere. on the other other, i have always been curious about, willing to understand, reading some science, listening to some sources, but the key is always to me how the project of science is honourable and durable and never as contingent as my arts...
or so i tell myself. because, of course, science is essentially a human project, with all the usual human qualities and failings, but for me there is always something beautiful that pure ideas- theoretical, disinterested, abstract- can be so fascinating for all one's life. my father always mentioned that the true great innovations leading to Nobels etc came to younger physicists, and he felt he is just never up to that, never as dedicated, so i think of him, when pressed on his career, suggesting 'i think i proved some things...' which may be all enough any scientist can reasonably ask for...
in this play, on the other, the characters investigated are famous and revered physicists, and maybe this is all that artists can do to represent science- as no less than magic, as personalities rather than ideas, as interpersonal conflicts, even with buried generational conflicts between the protagonists (the wife is sort of a chorus)... but reading the notes at the end of the play, extensive, intriguing: does make me wonder more and more how the author is able to even fashion this concise, fascinating, beautiful play...
240318: much later addition: i read this again with somewhat more educated stance, at least in philosophy, and i am again so impressed. this is a memory play, the characters heisenberg, bohr, bohr's wife margarethe, as if recounting this true incident as ghosts, forever trying to understand the other, in thoughts, in acts, but best resolved in metaphoric terms of the 'copenhagen interpretation' of quantum physics and the uncertainty principle and relativity... i have grown up and seen my scientist father and colleagues endeavour to communicate, share, dispute, abstruse physics and can easily imagine these characters doing exactly as they are portrayed. for me this play ranks with 'waiting for godot'...
??? 2000s. first review: now i want to see it produced: tv movie dvd where are you...
second review: i read a critical complaint that the character of heisenberg, musing on the horrors of war inflicted on germany, was rationally convincing himself that this was reason enough to help the nazis and build an atom bomb- and the reviewer was outraged this was not balanced by the horrors the nazis were responsible for, and she castigated the writer frayn for this! but i would argue, this would have been entirely consistent for heisenberg, this could have been his thoughts, which are not those of the writer. this suggests how real the characters become in this excellent play...
August 2, 2024
Since I had just read Benjamin Labutat's study of the intersection between theoretical physics, politics and ethics, When We Cease to Understand the World, and in the light of the recent film Oppenheimer, I recalled reading and seeing this play, Copenhagen, by Michael Frayn about a meeting between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in 1941, with Bohr’s wife as a kind of chorus or moderator.
The issue is of course the bomb, a kinda cool scientific thing to imagine creating if you didn't also realize it would kill hundreds of thousands of people. Heisenberg stayed in Germany to work on the German nuclear reactor project, knowing it would be possible to develop a bomb that could help his country win. Bohr, half Jewish, notes to Heisenberg that the Nazis killed theoretical physics by keeping Jews from doing this work, sending them to the US where they would develop it to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki, severely changing the trajectory of the war.
Powerful fictional dialogues on the issues. Reminded me a bit, too, of the play, The Physicists, by Friedrich Dürrenmatt, ion the same topic. The power of science to create and destroy.
The issue is of course the bomb, a kinda cool scientific thing to imagine creating if you didn't also realize it would kill hundreds of thousands of people. Heisenberg stayed in Germany to work on the German nuclear reactor project, knowing it would be possible to develop a bomb that could help his country win. Bohr, half Jewish, notes to Heisenberg that the Nazis killed theoretical physics by keeping Jews from doing this work, sending them to the US where they would develop it to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki, severely changing the trajectory of the war.
Powerful fictional dialogues on the issues. Reminded me a bit, too, of the play, The Physicists, by Friedrich Dürrenmatt, ion the same topic. The power of science to create and destroy.
October 25, 2008
I wish this had come with stage directions, because it was difficult to understand some of the dialogue without knowing how they were interacting (or not) on stage. Interesting subject, first act was much better than the second, I thought the author was trying too hard to make quantum mechanics match the possibilities of what happened at Bohr's home.
October 21, 2016
--Copenhagen
Postscript
Post-Postscript
Postscript
Post-Postscript
September 20, 2009
What a play. As I watched it I knew I had to see it again but wouldn't be able to as the season was booked out. As it was, the night we went our seats were on the stage. A peculiar experience.
Still, it meant I bought the book the next day. 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.
Still, it meant I bought the book the next day. 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.
October 29, 2017
I saw the play in 2003 in a memorable version that was presented to science students at the University of Buenos Aires, which was followed by intense debate. Also, I´ve watched the play/movie version with Stephen Rea and Daniel Craig several times since i use the movie for teaching. I read the play this week to extract quotes for further work with my students. It´s pure genius, one of the best plays i have ever seen
August 6, 2023
Copenhagen is the imagined discussion that Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr had on the topic of the atomic bomb. This play was intriguing and the way the characters are depicted was dimensional. Frayn was very much driven on historical information, leading to this play's ability to grasp that information. It had the ability to be an outstanding play BUT the tenses and point of view were scattered and difficult to follow.
The narrator changed frequently, depending on which two people were talking, be it Heisenberg, Bohr, or Bohr's wife, Margrethe. You were on your own when it came to figuring out who the narrator was at any given time. This play was supposed to be Heisenberg and Bohr speaking of the atomic bomb in the present day, but they bring up future events, which created mind-boggling complications. I felt that this book missed a great deal of opportunities by having them in a state of recalling rather than in the present state, addressing the present time.
A reimagined discussion Heisenberg and Bohr would have been more ideal to me. There should have been clearer narration, more specification to the setting, and it should have been longer than two acts. The development of the characters was intriguing enough to warrant a longer play. The canvas on which they were placed did them a disservice.
The narrator changed frequently, depending on which two people were talking, be it Heisenberg, Bohr, or Bohr's wife, Margrethe. You were on your own when it came to figuring out who the narrator was at any given time. This play was supposed to be Heisenberg and Bohr speaking of the atomic bomb in the present day, but they bring up future events, which created mind-boggling complications. I felt that this book missed a great deal of opportunities by having them in a state of recalling rather than in the present state, addressing the present time.
A reimagined discussion Heisenberg and Bohr would have been more ideal to me. There should have been clearer narration, more specification to the setting, and it should have been longer than two acts. The development of the characters was intriguing enough to warrant a longer play. The canvas on which they were placed did them a disservice.
April 13, 2021
I don’t know anywhere near enough about Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg nor about physics to judge the biographical or scientific accuracy of Michael Frayn’s Copenhagen, but I do know ethics and emotion and theatre, and I can say -- without doubt -- that Copenhagen is a stage masterpiece.
I am sad to say that I have never seen it staged, but I have read the play and now listened to an L.A. Theatreworks performance, starring Alfred Molina (Niels Bohr), Shannon Cochran (Margrethe Bohr), and David Krumholtz (Werner Heisenberg), and I have twice been captivated by the brilliance of this piece. Even for the uninitiated (although perhaps it is precisely because I am uninitiated) the science is a mind-blowing delight, and the science leads straight into powerful questions about the atomic age and nuclear arms, and both of these are reflected in and enhanced by the father-mother-son dynamics that underpin the lives of Copenhagen’s three players.
Copenhagen is as poetic as it is emotionally satisfying, as compelling as it is ethically fraught, as of a time and place as it is of an uncertain reality. It is one of the finest plays I’ve read/heard. And damn do I want to play Niels Bohr. What a wonderful part that would be.
I am sad to say that I have never seen it staged, but I have read the play and now listened to an L.A. Theatreworks performance, starring Alfred Molina (Niels Bohr), Shannon Cochran (Margrethe Bohr), and David Krumholtz (Werner Heisenberg), and I have twice been captivated by the brilliance of this piece. Even for the uninitiated (although perhaps it is precisely because I am uninitiated) the science is a mind-blowing delight, and the science leads straight into powerful questions about the atomic age and nuclear arms, and both of these are reflected in and enhanced by the father-mother-son dynamics that underpin the lives of Copenhagen’s three players.
Copenhagen is as poetic as it is emotionally satisfying, as compelling as it is ethically fraught, as of a time and place as it is of an uncertain reality. It is one of the finest plays I’ve read/heard. And damn do I want to play Niels Bohr. What a wonderful part that would be.
November 2, 2016
Δυο καλοί φίλοι και συνάδελφοι, ο Νιλς Μπορ - Δανός φυσικός και διευθυντής του Ινστιτούτο Θεωρητικής Φυσικής της Κοπεγχάγης και ο Βέρνερ Χάιζενμπεργκ - Γερμανός φυσικός, που πέρασε τα πιο δημιουργικά του χρόνια στην Κοπεγχάγη. Ο Μπορ ήταν ο μέντορας του Χάιζενμπεργκ. Ο Χάιζενμπεργκ είναι Γερμανός και ο Μπορ έχει εβραϊκές ρίζες.
Ο Χάιζενμπεργκ επισκέπτεται το Μπορ στην Κοπεγχάγη στο σπίτι του, προκειμένου να συζητήσουν για ένα θέμα που τον απασχολούσε ιδιαιτέρως. Μετά από αυτή τη συνάντηση, οι δυο τους δεν ξαναμίλησαν, ενώ ο Μπορ δραπέτευσε στη Σουηδία και μαζί με τον Αϊνστάιν έγιναν οι υπέρμαχοι της έναρξης του προγράμματος Μανχάταν (το πρόγραμμα που κατασκεύασε τις δυο πυρηνικές βόμβες της Ιαπωνίας).
Τα παραπάνω είναι ιστορικά γεγονότα. Το τι συζητήθηκε τότε είναι το θέμα του παρόντος θεατρικού έργου. Ένα έργο για τη φιλία, την ειρήνη, τα αντίπαλα στρατόπεδα, την επιστήμη στην υπηρεσία του πολέμου και το σκοπό που αγιάζει (?) τα μέσα.
Το έχω δει επανειλλημμένα σε σχολική θεατρική παράσταση. Η διδασκαλία της νομίζω ότι είναι ότι πιο διαδραστικό ανάμεσα στα διάφορα μαθήματα και στη διαμόρφωση της στάσης στους μαθητές για την κοινωνική σκοπιά της επιστήμης και το ρόλο που ο επιστήμονας καλείται να παίξει σε στιγμές έκτακτης ανάγκης.
Ο Χάιζενμπεργκ επισκέπτεται το Μπορ στην Κοπεγχάγη στο σπίτι του, προκειμένου να συζητήσουν για ένα θέμα που τον απασχολούσε ιδιαιτέρως. Μετά από αυτή τη συνάντηση, οι δυο τους δεν ξαναμίλησαν, ενώ ο Μπορ δραπέτευσε στη Σουηδία και μαζί με τον Αϊνστάιν έγιναν οι υπέρμαχοι της έναρξης του προγράμματος Μανχάταν (το πρόγραμμα που κατασκεύασε τις δυο πυρηνικές βόμβες της Ιαπωνίας).
Τα παραπάνω είναι ιστορικά γεγονότα. Το τι συζητήθηκε τότε είναι το θέμα του παρόντος θεατρικού έργου. Ένα έργο για τη φιλία, την ειρήνη, τα αντίπαλα στρατόπεδα, την επιστήμη στην υπηρεσία του πολέμου και το σκοπό που αγιάζει (?) τα μέσα.
Το έχω δει επανειλλημμένα σε σχολική θεατρική παράσταση. Η διδασκαλία της νομίζω ότι είναι ότι πιο διαδραστικό ανάμεσα στα διάφορα μαθήματα και στη διαμόρφωση της στάσης στους μαθητές για την κοινωνική σκοπιά της επιστήμης και το ρόλο που ο επιστήμονας καλείται να παίξει σε στιγμές έκτακτης ανάγκης.
July 28, 2020
The mentalities of the characters in Copenhagen are based on the idea of the nuclear family, the importance of interpersonal relationships, and space of the home as a safe, secure sphere to interact within. This longing for security becomes contradictory to the underlying, inevitable uncertainty society impresses upon individuals in Copenhagen, which comes to exist at the core of everything Copenhagen’s characters do, manifesting itself in their intentions, morals, and loyalties, and being most authentically explained through Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr’s scientific principles of uncertainty and complementarity, respectively.
How individuals reacted to coming out of conflict appear in this insecure, uncertain world of Copenhagen and are examined from the afterlife in the relationship dynamics between Danish physicist Niels Bohr, Margrethe, and German theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg, during and post-WWII, and are modeled cleverly on the structure of an atom, with each character an electron orbiting around a nucleus of uncertainty, and constantly reorganizing depending on circumstance.
Security and relationships are tenuous and complex in wartime and it becomes difficult to delineate between what people say, mean, do, and actually feel, as well as then how to process and remember interactions, which becomes the predominant crisis for each of the characters in Copenhagen.
Copenhagen is ultimately a memory play, which draws upon Heisenberg, Bohr, and Margrethe’s memory to come up with why Heisenberg, as a German, came to visit Bohr, a half-Jewish citizen living in occupied Denmark, in Copenhagen in 1941. Throughout Copenhagen, the unpredictability and unfathomability of our humanness is explained metaphorically through the aforementioned scientific phenomena of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and Bohr’s complementarity principle.
Memory is fundamentally flawed and subjective as each time we go to access a stored memory it becomes more and more corrupted from how the original moment in time happened and that only is exacerbated by the trauma and multi-layered motives and morality of war. That's what makes memory so fascinating to work with in this context as we, as readers, can never truly know anything, which simultaneously unhinges and terrifies us and betrays our need for the comfort of certainty.
There is a fundamental uncertainty that characterizes life, especially during and after WWII and the Cold War, that cannot ever be redressed by family life or material ideals since it is a quality that innately exists within us and society. Society is only a malleable, adaptable product of how humans of that time period have decided to structure their reality, but the fact that uncertainty and insecurity remain inevitable parts of human existence and life only can lead us to accepting that we will never completely know ourselves or the people and world around us and that can be the only certainty and this play really caused me to ponder all of these questions, but there are moments where it stalls a bit and loses momentum, hence the four stars. Other than that it is an interesting, multi-layered read with many thought-provoking moments to consider!
How individuals reacted to coming out of conflict appear in this insecure, uncertain world of Copenhagen and are examined from the afterlife in the relationship dynamics between Danish physicist Niels Bohr, Margrethe, and German theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg, during and post-WWII, and are modeled cleverly on the structure of an atom, with each character an electron orbiting around a nucleus of uncertainty, and constantly reorganizing depending on circumstance.
Security and relationships are tenuous and complex in wartime and it becomes difficult to delineate between what people say, mean, do, and actually feel, as well as then how to process and remember interactions, which becomes the predominant crisis for each of the characters in Copenhagen.
Copenhagen is ultimately a memory play, which draws upon Heisenberg, Bohr, and Margrethe’s memory to come up with why Heisenberg, as a German, came to visit Bohr, a half-Jewish citizen living in occupied Denmark, in Copenhagen in 1941. Throughout Copenhagen, the unpredictability and unfathomability of our humanness is explained metaphorically through the aforementioned scientific phenomena of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and Bohr’s complementarity principle.
Memory is fundamentally flawed and subjective as each time we go to access a stored memory it becomes more and more corrupted from how the original moment in time happened and that only is exacerbated by the trauma and multi-layered motives and morality of war. That's what makes memory so fascinating to work with in this context as we, as readers, can never truly know anything, which simultaneously unhinges and terrifies us and betrays our need for the comfort of certainty.
There is a fundamental uncertainty that characterizes life, especially during and after WWII and the Cold War, that cannot ever be redressed by family life or material ideals since it is a quality that innately exists within us and society. Society is only a malleable, adaptable product of how humans of that time period have decided to structure their reality, but the fact that uncertainty and insecurity remain inevitable parts of human existence and life only can lead us to accepting that we will never completely know ourselves or the people and world around us and that can be the only certainty and this play really caused me to ponder all of these questions, but there are moments where it stalls a bit and loses momentum, hence the four stars. Other than that it is an interesting, multi-layered read with many thought-provoking moments to consider!
January 4, 2019
Likes: I don’t read many stage plays because watching them is always more fun than reading them, but I thought I’d give Copenhagen a shot. It has amazing reviews and has been nominated for many, many awards. What could go wrong?
I enjoyed the historical aspect of the play. It’s based on a real meeting that occurred in 1941 between physicists Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr. They were both working on secret government weapons projects, and they found themselves working for opposite alliances during WWII. There is debate over what they talked about at their meeting. This play imagines the conversations they might have had. I think the “characters” are believable. They’re passionate about science, but they have complicated feelings about their actions during the war and how their work will be used by people in power. This is a play about memory, ambition, and regret.
Dislikes: So . . . unpopular opinion time: I know this play is beloved by everybody, but I struggled with it. A lot. Even though it’s short, it seems long because I got really, really bored. I think it needs actors to bring it to life. The dialogue is dry. Reading it is like reading an argument between two college professors about a topic that I don’t understand and don’t care about.
This play also has no stage directions. That made it hard to picture what was happening. The characters often talk to the audience or talk about each other like they’re not all on stage together. It’s very jarring until you get used to it.
The Bottom Line: I got bored and confused.
Do you like opinions, giveaways, and bookish nonsense? I have a blog for that.
I enjoyed the historical aspect of the play. It’s based on a real meeting that occurred in 1941 between physicists Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr. They were both working on secret government weapons projects, and they found themselves working for opposite alliances during WWII. There is debate over what they talked about at their meeting. This play imagines the conversations they might have had. I think the “characters” are believable. They’re passionate about science, but they have complicated feelings about their actions during the war and how their work will be used by people in power. This is a play about memory, ambition, and regret.
“We have one set of obligations to the world in general, and we have other sets, never to be reconciled, to our fellow-country men, to our neighbors, to our friends, to our family, to our children. We have to go through not two slits at the same time but twenty-two. All we can do is to look afterwards, and see what happened.” – Copenhagen
Dislikes: So . . . unpopular opinion time: I know this play is beloved by everybody, but I struggled with it. A lot. Even though it’s short, it seems long because I got really, really bored. I think it needs actors to bring it to life. The dialogue is dry. Reading it is like reading an argument between two college professors about a topic that I don’t understand and don’t care about.
This play also has no stage directions. That made it hard to picture what was happening. The characters often talk to the audience or talk about each other like they’re not all on stage together. It’s very jarring until you get used to it.
The Bottom Line: I got bored and confused.
Do you like opinions, giveaways, and bookish nonsense? I have a blog for that.
October 30, 2016
Copenhagen explores the "secret" meeting that took place between Heisenberg and Neils Bohr, two Nobel laureates, discussing atom bombs. This incident took place in 1941 and history asserts this specific meeting. Frayn provides a fictional account of this meeting.
Heisenberg, once Bohr's protege, remains with Germany during World War II. This puts him and Bohr on the opposite sides of the war. With scientific minds scattered across Europe and the United States, scientific and technological progress took a competitive turn. Heisenberg is isolated in German given he was a Jew and misses out on Fermi's fission success by two years. Einstein is working on Manhattan project with Oppenheimer. With this background, the play begins with Bohr and his wife waiting for Heisenberg to arrive.
Frayn explores the two scientists based on historical accounts available on the two. They are two men who were once close finding themselves in the opposite side of the war and the argument regarding atom bombs. Frayn explores the intertwined notions of scientific inquiry, genuine research, war propaganda and moral compromises. Its a sad fact that science and technology progresses at an alarming pace when wars are involved. The good, the bad and the ugly are discussed but only on retrospection one would realize the complexity of the times they were living in.
The interconnected nature of science and personality is the essence of the conversation.
Heisenberg, once Bohr's protege, remains with Germany during World War II. This puts him and Bohr on the opposite sides of the war. With scientific minds scattered across Europe and the United States, scientific and technological progress took a competitive turn. Heisenberg is isolated in German given he was a Jew and misses out on Fermi's fission success by two years. Einstein is working on Manhattan project with Oppenheimer. With this background, the play begins with Bohr and his wife waiting for Heisenberg to arrive.
Frayn explores the two scientists based on historical accounts available on the two. They are two men who were once close finding themselves in the opposite side of the war and the argument regarding atom bombs. Frayn explores the intertwined notions of scientific inquiry, genuine research, war propaganda and moral compromises. Its a sad fact that science and technology progresses at an alarming pace when wars are involved. The good, the bad and the ugly are discussed but only on retrospection one would realize the complexity of the times they were living in.
The interconnected nature of science and personality is the essence of the conversation.
June 18, 2019
Almost 4.5 stars
At one point in the play Bohr says to Heisenberg- and I paraphrase - don't assume that because my country is a smaller piece of land compared to yours, that i don't feel the same sense of patriotism to it that you do. 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.
This is the essence of the conflict that two eminent scientists with giant leap contributions to modern physics find themselves embroiled with.
Michael Frayn takes the historical reference to one chance and completely unexpected inexplicable almost improper meeting between Bohr and Heisenberg - once close as father and son and now sitting squarely on opposite sides of a war with consequences neither had yet grasped though they were at the very moment working towards it - and spins a fictional account of what might have transpired - all the while emphasizing that the protagonists themselves may have never truly known their own motivations let alone the other's.
The fabulous interplay of science and politics and how war might have accelerated mankind's progress at the cost of human life itself, the morality of impossible choices and the what-ifs of un-provable rationalisations; are brought forth via uncertain, almost elemental dialogue (how's that for pun) and makes for a thought provoking, almost wistful read.
At one point in the play Bohr says to Heisenberg- and I paraphrase - don't assume that because my country is a smaller piece of land compared to yours, that i don't feel the same sense of patriotism to it that you do. 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.
This is the essence of the conflict that two eminent scientists with giant leap contributions to modern physics find themselves embroiled with.
Michael Frayn takes the historical reference to one chance and completely unexpected inexplicable almost improper meeting between Bohr and Heisenberg - once close as father and son and now sitting squarely on opposite sides of a war with consequences neither had yet grasped though they were at the very moment working towards it - and spins a fictional account of what might have transpired - all the while emphasizing that the protagonists themselves may have never truly known their own motivations let alone the other's.
The fabulous interplay of science and politics and how war might have accelerated mankind's progress at the cost of human life itself, the morality of impossible choices and the what-ifs of un-provable rationalisations; are brought forth via uncertain, almost elemental dialogue (how's that for pun) and makes for a thought provoking, almost wistful read.
July 3, 2020
An impressively compact play that details a whole bunch of things, including:
- a strange meeting between Niels Bohr & Werner Heisenberg in 1941
- the development of quantum physics leading up to World War II
- the atomic bomb projects, or lack thereof, in the Allies vs. Germany
- Heisenberg's uncertainty principle & its relationship to his personal life
- the fallibility of memory
- the limits of interpretation
- the darkness of human psychology; the defense mechanisms we put in place
- questions of morality, writ large and very real.
It's dense, but engaging. The characters (Bohr, Bohr's wife Margrethe, & Heisenberg) are -- if not terribly complex -- certainly well-written, and the lines of thought/reasoning clear enough to follow (and a lengthy Postscript, explaining some historical context and authorial interpretation, helps). The structure is particularly cool (definitely got some quantum entanglement going on), and because there are no stage directions, any production team would have a field day staging this --- I kinda want to. I'd definitely love to see this performed, anyway!
Seriously enjoyable read and also what the fuck happened to humanity in the 1940s jesus christ everyone lost their collective minds
- a strange meeting between Niels Bohr & Werner Heisenberg in 1941
- the development of quantum physics leading up to World War II
- the atomic bomb projects, or lack thereof, in the Allies vs. Germany
- Heisenberg's uncertainty principle & its relationship to his personal life
- the fallibility of memory
- the limits of interpretation
- the darkness of human psychology; the defense mechanisms we put in place
- questions of morality, writ large and very real.
It's dense, but engaging. The characters (Bohr, Bohr's wife Margrethe, & Heisenberg) are -- if not terribly complex -- certainly well-written, and the lines of thought/reasoning clear enough to follow (and a lengthy Postscript, explaining some historical context and authorial interpretation, helps). The structure is particularly cool (definitely got some quantum entanglement going on), and because there are no stage directions, any production team would have a field day staging this --- I kinda want to. I'd definitely love to see this performed, anyway!
Seriously enjoyable read and also what the fuck happened to humanity in the 1940s jesus christ everyone lost their collective minds
January 13, 2013
Drama on 3:
Benedict Cumberbatch, Greta Scacchi and Simon Russell Beale star in Michael Frayn's award-winning play about the controversial 1941 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'.
Being a physicist myself, this dialog between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg was widely discussed during my graduation studies.
For further information, please take a look at The Mysterious Meeting between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.
I also recommend Einstein's book The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta.
A movie Copenhagen (2002) was made based on this story, starring Daniel Craig and Stephen Rea.
Benedict Cumberbatch, Greta Scacchi and Simon Russell Beale star in Michael Frayn's award-winning play about the controversial 1941 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'.
Being a physicist myself, this dialog between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg was widely discussed during my graduation studies.
For further information, please take a look at The Mysterious Meeting between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.
I also recommend Einstein's book The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta.
A movie Copenhagen (2002) was made based on this story, starring Daniel Craig and Stephen Rea.
June 2, 2011
Heisenbergs line sums this the essence of the work up brilliantly:
Complementarity, once again. I'm your enemy; I'm also your friend. I'm a danger to mankind; I'm also your guest. I'm a particle; I'm also a wave. We have one set of obligations to the world in general, and we have other sets, never to be reconciled to our fellow countrymen... All we can do is to look afterwards, and see what happened.
This is I feel the premise and emotion garnered from this work. I do not know if personally I would have enjoyed this as a play. The characters are of course infinitely fascinating as well as the setting, but it lacks the elements of live theater that the audience would crave such as any descriptions of set, placement, and interactions that give life to this work. Perhaps the author wishes to leave it to the interpretive will of the director but I think this a mistake. Are they speaking above other efficaces of themselves from up above on a platform, while they reenact their own story? Are they milling about as ghosts among others? Are they simply reliving the moment over and over? I think there is too much license given to the mind to make for a good idea of ranking this as a stage act. However, as a work of literature, as something to read and enjoy it is superb! The place in history is complex and mirrored. The characters are of course not only important in history but the dialogues, though fictional, are very well fused with the feelings and emotions of the time and of the work in their field.
Complementarity, once again. I'm your enemy; I'm also your friend. I'm a danger to mankind; I'm also your guest. I'm a particle; I'm also a wave. We have one set of obligations to the world in general, and we have other sets, never to be reconciled to our fellow countrymen... All we can do is to look afterwards, and see what happened.
This is I feel the premise and emotion garnered from this work. I do not know if personally I would have enjoyed this as a play. The characters are of course infinitely fascinating as well as the setting, but it lacks the elements of live theater that the audience would crave such as any descriptions of set, placement, and interactions that give life to this work. Perhaps the author wishes to leave it to the interpretive will of the director but I think this a mistake. Are they speaking above other efficaces of themselves from up above on a platform, while they reenact their own story? Are they milling about as ghosts among others? Are they simply reliving the moment over and over? I think there is too much license given to the mind to make for a good idea of ranking this as a stage act. However, as a work of literature, as something to read and enjoy it is superb! The place in history is complex and mirrored. The characters are of course not only important in history but the dialogues, though fictional, are very well fused with the feelings and emotions of the time and of the work in their field.
February 2, 2015
There are plenty of living room dramas in the world, so I certainly can't begrudge this play being something entirely different / but that also doesn't change the fact that 70% of this play felt like attending a quantum mechanics lecture. I couldn't help but picture Frayn poring over physics books and quantum theory papers, which is not something I really want to imagine when I'm reading/viewing a play. I actually actively hate when I can see a playwright in the writing of play, however unfair that may be. I don't want to see him working hard and learning more about plutonium than most people will ever know in their lifetimes. I just don't.
Having said that, I really appreciated the attempt to marry science to art. I liked the spin of "life mimics art" into "science mimics life mimics art." I also liked the attempted paralleled Frayn tried to draw between uncertainty in quantum theory and the same effect in life, regarding ourselves and others.
I don't think I'd be terribly excited to sit through all of the science lecture just to uncover that gem, though.
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. 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...
On another note, I cast Benedict Cumberbatch as Heisenberg while I read this and it made it incredibly entertaining for me.
Having said that, I really appreciated the attempt to marry science to art. I liked the spin of "life mimics art" into "science mimics life mimics art." I also liked the attempted paralleled Frayn tried to draw between uncertainty in quantum theory and the same effect in life, regarding ourselves and others.
I don't think I'd be terribly excited to sit through all of the science lecture just to uncover that gem, though.
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. 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...
On another note, I cast Benedict Cumberbatch as Heisenberg while I read this and it made it incredibly entertaining for me.
March 6, 2018
Excellent and thought provoking play about the meeting between Bohr and Heisenberg during the war – the slightly pretentious commentary doesn’t add much but does place the play in the context of the themes Frayn pursues in his wider work especially about the impossibility of understanding one’s own motivations let alone another’s and how a novel rather than play can imply greater comprehension than possible; and while Frayn’s own postscript gives too much of the latest analysis by historians of what happened, it does when read quickly give a good background for the play making comprehension of the plot easy.
June 2, 2019
You live and breathe paradox and contradiction, but you can no more see the beauty of them than the fish can see the beauty of the water
It was provocative to read this when midway through S3 of True Detective. Both entities plumb the nebulous foundation of memory. Both resound with a perhaps amateur understanding of the Uncertainty Principle. (Frayn explores the translation of term in his lengthy afterward) Alas, Copenhagen features physicists Bohr and Heisenberg and the artistry of this representation appears almost musical--though likewise abstract. There is an active interrogation of culpability which is more a meditation on agency. I thoroughly enjoyed that.
It was provocative to read this when midway through S3 of True Detective. Both entities plumb the nebulous foundation of memory. Both resound with a perhaps amateur understanding of the Uncertainty Principle. (Frayn explores the translation of term in his lengthy afterward) Alas, Copenhagen features physicists Bohr and Heisenberg and the artistry of this representation appears almost musical--though likewise abstract. There is an active interrogation of culpability which is more a meditation on agency. I thoroughly enjoyed that.
March 21, 2025
I love the history behind the play and characters, but since I don't know much about the history and since the plot is non-linear, I got confused whenever I read it.
November 20, 2021
An engaging play and an intellectual masterpiece all in one - the connections between physics and the characters were brilliant.
December 31, 2012
In 1941, German physicist Werner Heisenberg made a clandestine trip to have dinner with his friend, Danish physicist Niels Bohr, and his wife, Margrethe. They were two of the absolute best scientists in their field—this was the same Heisenberg who had formulated the Uncertainty Principle—and they had challenged each other to do some of their very best work. But Heisenberg was a patriotic German who was now working, probably with some reluctance, under the Nazis; Bohr, who was half-Jewish, would soon be forced to flee Denmark. After dinner, the two of them went for a walk and had a conversation about the point of Heisenberg's visit. At the end of that conversation, their friendship was over and Heisenberg returned to Germany.
These are the agreed-upon facts of that evening, but no one can seem to agree on exactly what was said during that conversation: not the two scientists themselves in the aftermath of World War II, and certainly not the historians who have tried to piece it together since then. There's some consensus that one of the main topics must have been nuclear research and the question of whether Germany or the Allies had the resources or knowledge to develop nuclear weapons, but even that is hazy if you just look at the strict historical record. MIchael Frayn's play doesn't presume to try to figure out, definitively, what was said that night; in fact, it argues that Heisenberg, Bohr, and Margrethe Bohr are still trying themselves to agree on what happened, even years after they've all died.
Starting with several conflicting (but sometimes co-existent) historical accounts, Frayn creates fictionalized versions of these three figures and sets them talking. They talk about the exhilaration of being on the cutting edge of physics in the 1920s, the death of one of the Bohrs' sons in a boating accident, the encroachment of the Nazis on Germany's brilliant, promising scientific community, and, yes, the manipulation of uranium to create nuclear fission. The story largely belongs to Heisenberg, who was almost undoubtedly smart enough to solve the same equations that allowed his counterparts in Los Alamos to create a bomb. Did he consciously prevent the initiation of a Nazi nuclear program? Or was he simply unable to do the right calculations in time, despite his genius? 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.
These are the agreed-upon facts of that evening, but no one can seem to agree on exactly what was said during that conversation: not the two scientists themselves in the aftermath of World War II, and certainly not the historians who have tried to piece it together since then. There's some consensus that one of the main topics must have been nuclear research and the question of whether Germany or the Allies had the resources or knowledge to develop nuclear weapons, but even that is hazy if you just look at the strict historical record. MIchael Frayn's play doesn't presume to try to figure out, definitively, what was said that night; in fact, it argues that Heisenberg, Bohr, and Margrethe Bohr are still trying themselves to agree on what happened, even years after they've all died.
Starting with several conflicting (but sometimes co-existent) historical accounts, Frayn creates fictionalized versions of these three figures and sets them talking. They talk about the exhilaration of being on the cutting edge of physics in the 1920s, the death of one of the Bohrs' sons in a boating accident, the encroachment of the Nazis on Germany's brilliant, promising scientific community, and, yes, the manipulation of uranium to create nuclear fission. The story largely belongs to Heisenberg, who was almost undoubtedly smart enough to solve the same equations that allowed his counterparts in Los Alamos to create a bomb. Did he consciously prevent the initiation of a Nazi nuclear program? Or was he simply unable to do the right calculations in time, despite his genius? 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.
March 22, 2021
From an unlikely topic – quantum physics – Frayn creates a moving drama. The play ventures into the obscure and counter-intuitive world of quantum physics where the playwright overlays the theories of the characters with their personalities. The idea is cleverly presented as the characters after death, the dialogue flitting through different periods of time. This creates an environment where time is elusive and nonlinear. (Like quantum physics?)
The discussions about the appropriateness of helping create an apocalyptic weapon – and handing it to a homicidal maniac – are brilliant. Those are gripping and provoking sections -- appropriate for our times and all times.
The play, though, peters out in the middle. I noticed this in reading the play and seeing it performed. The farther the play ventures from the core German question (to build or not to build a bomb), the less gripping it becomes.
The long stretches at the end of the first act and starting the second where they talk about the creation of uncertainty and complementarity go flat. The play moves from people and the world, to ideas and theories, and there loses the wonderful frisson it once had.
I get it. In these sections Frayn is presenting the theories that he will use to explain the personalities of Heisenberg and Bohr. It felt to me that the play wandered from it’s main focus. And the payoff of this idea that the man matches the theory is not that great. (At least not for me.) It’s not until the discussion turns back to Germany that the play again finds its power.
With some tightening, this could have been one of the greatest one-acts or short plays evert written.
But I quibble, and I don’t want to make the very good the enemy of the perfect. It’s very much worth reading/seeing. I highly recommend it.
The discussions about the appropriateness of helping create an apocalyptic weapon – and handing it to a homicidal maniac – are brilliant. Those are gripping and provoking sections -- appropriate for our times and all times.
The play, though, peters out in the middle. I noticed this in reading the play and seeing it performed. The farther the play ventures from the core German question (to build or not to build a bomb), the less gripping it becomes.
The long stretches at the end of the first act and starting the second where they talk about the creation of uncertainty and complementarity go flat. The play moves from people and the world, to ideas and theories, and there loses the wonderful frisson it once had.
I get it. In these sections Frayn is presenting the theories that he will use to explain the personalities of Heisenberg and Bohr. It felt to me that the play wandered from it’s main focus. And the payoff of this idea that the man matches the theory is not that great. (At least not for me.) It’s not until the discussion turns back to Germany that the play again finds its power.
With some tightening, this could have been one of the greatest one-acts or short plays evert written.
But I quibble, and I don’t want to make the very good the enemy of the perfect. It’s very much worth reading/seeing. I highly recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 449 reviews