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):||18 November 2010|
|PDF File Size:||5.77 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.3 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Americans ended up for various reasons thinking it could be done; the Germans thought it was not worth the risk and expense. It is fun to think about and gratifying to imagine.
But above all they were human, with all the requisite failings and ambiguities, and when considered as such they become so much more fascinating — which is why I picked up Co I’m kind of fascinated by the history of science, in particular by the lives of the various actors involved. Of course, there are limits to this sort of attitude.
They lacked the fear of an Allied project that the Allies had of them. For an arts graduate. And, ah, you’re kind of beautiful too. You can unsubscribe anytime. And I just had no idea about Heisenberg’s involvement in the Nazi nuclear project.
Helpmann Award for Best Play. The place in history is complex and mirrored. Or was he simply unable to do the right calculations in time, despite his genius?
Copenhagen review – Michael Frayn’s masterwork still blazes with mystery
Sep 04, Nicki rated it liked it Shelves: All that said, I for once have For Valentine’s Day, Jesse gave me an uninterrupted hour to read Copenhagen and write the review. Heisenberg tried to convey his opinions later during private discussions with Bohr.
Finally, the Bohr draft letters, written 16 years after the meeting, suggest a conflict between Bohr and Heisenberg. 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 And uncertainty — and unknowability — are principles throughout.
Nov 01, Aj Sterkel rated it did not like it Shelves: I noticed tears in your eyes at one point. Moderator was probably an apt term, since I literally had to get between Tom and critics, to keep the latter from physically attacking him. As I watched it I knew I had to see it again but wouldn’t be able to as the season was booked out. But it might appear to give an one of those questions that people have been asking since 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 unprovable rationalisations are brought forth via uncertain, almost elemental dialogue how’s that for pun and makes for a thought provoking, almost wistful read.
It can also be thought to exist “inside the heads” of the characters present.
After dinner, the two of them went for a walk and had a conversation about the point of Heisenberg’s visit.
Much like books, the theatre allows me to experience something different. Bohr and Heisenberg are longtime friends and copehnagen, and from them we hear about their relationship and their physics, how politics affects everything, and how difficult it is to keep those apart. We have one set of obligations grayn the world colenhagen general, and we have other sets, never to be reconciled to our fellow countrymen Bohr was a Danish refugee who escaped Nazi occupation of his country.
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.
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 copenhaten.
Copenhagen by Michael Frayn
There have been some articles on this. Jungk published an extract from the letter in the Danish edition of the book in which, out of context, made it look as if Heisenberg was claiming to have sabotaged the German bomb project on moral grounds.
People trying their best to be decent human beings when all they have are bad choices. I was wondering if I could kiss you. What was discussed at the meeting has long been the subject of debate among scientists and historians; recently released letters see them at the Niels Bohr Archive shed more light on matters, without completely clearing up the question. Trying to meet all your book preview and review needs.
I could barely get the words out. If you’re interested in history of science and WW2, especially physics and atomic bomb, I can’t recommend it highly enough.