I thoroughly enjoyed this book. If you're interested in history of science and WW2, especially physics and atomic bomb, I can't recommend it highly enough. Of course, this is a work of fiction and Frayn knows nothing about quantum mechanics, but still... it's interesting, informative and cleverly written._________________________________Why did Heisenberg go to Copenhagen in 1941?The Idea. "The idea for Copenhagen came to me out of my interest in philosophy. It was when I read a remarkable book called Heisenberg's War by Thomas Powers, that I came across the story of Werner Heisenberg's visit to Niels Bohr in 1941. As soon as I read it I began to think that this story reflected some of the problems that I had been thinking about in philosophy for a long time. How we know why people do what they do, and even how one knows what one does oneself. It's a fundamental question... this is the heart of the play.We can [in theory] never know everything about human thinking. I wanted to suggest with Copenhagen that there is some kind of parallel between the indeterminacy of human thinking, and the indeterminacy that Heisenberg introduced into physics with his famous Uncertainty Principle." (Michael Frayn)Historicity. "Frayn says he follows the philosophy of history found in the work of Thucydides, and in so doing, he takes on the task of any imaginative writer: to shape disparate facts into an intelligible and interpretable whole. " If you want facts read more here (Resources for Frayn's Copenhagen @ MIT), here (letters and drafts of letters from Bohr to Heisenberg @ Niels Bohr Archive) and here (documents by Werner Heisneberg @ University of New Hampshire).Characters & Structure of the Play. Heisenberg: "Now we’re all dead and gone, yes, and there are only two things the world remembers about me. One is the uncertainty principle, and the other is my mysterious visit to Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in 1941. Everyone understands uncertainty. Or thinks he does. No one understands my trip to Copenhagen. Time and time again I’ve explained it. To Bohr himself, and Margrethe. To interrogators and intelligence officers, to journalists and historians. The more I’ve explained, the deeper the uncertainty has become. Well, I shall be happy to make one more attempt. Now we’re all dead and gone. Now no one can be hurt, now no one can be betrayed." (Copenhagen, Act One)So, the ghosts of Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and Margrethe Bohr (Bohr's wife) came together to answer why. Bohr and Heisenberg are longtime friends and collaborators, and from them we hear about their relationship and their physics, how politics affects everything, and how difficult it is to keep those apart. 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 1941... Margrethe is there in the way that all the other people in the world are attempting to explain his behavior", says Frayn). They sit and talk, over and over again trying to reconstruct what happened, but can't agree (as Bohr wrote to Heisenberg in a letter he never sent: "I am greatly amazed to see how much your memory has deceived you..."). The way Frayn applied their scientific theories to their lives particularly impressed me, but, above all, it's a story about scientists as human beings, something I always enjoy reading.I hear there's a TV movie based on it - Copenhagen (2002) with Daniel Craig as Werner Heisenberg - guess that's as close as I'll get to seeing this play.[Read this review on my blog]
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.
What do You think about Copenhagen (2000)?
- 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?
—Manny
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.
—Nicki
Theatre and Physics: "Copenhagen" by Michael Frayn Published August 8th 2000. Why do I go to the theatre? The question bears the same gravitas as the one regarding books. Much like books, the theatre allows me to experience something different. Not like books or movies though, the theatre often feels more real since I share the same space as the actors. While books can help me enter the world of the story, and temporarily leave my own life, being a theatre buff can also bring meaning into my life as well. Maybe the play shows me a different perspective of the world that I did not notice before. Often, plays give me that something extra, be it the love, the strength, or the determination that I need to move forward in my life. What about “Copenhagen”? Bottom-line. It’s a Hamlet play. It’s also about the fallibility of memory, human relationships, and being at a crossroad in life: "Now we’re all dead and gone, yes, and there are only two things the world remembers about me. One is the uncertainty principle, and the other is my mysterious visit to Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in 1941. Everyone understands uncertainty. Or thinks he does. No one understands my trip to Copenhagen. Time and time again I’ve explained it. To Bohr himself, and Margrethe. To interrogators and intelligence officers, to journalists and historians. The more I’ve explained, the deeper the uncertainty has become. Well, I shall be happy to make one more attempt. Now we’re all dead and gone. Now no one can be hurt, now no one can be betrayed." (Act One) The rest of this review can be found elsewhere.
—Manuel Antão
