Scan barcode
dkrane's review against another edition
3.0
Second act a bit disappointing compared to first but fun multivalent staging possibilities.
dmrjr13's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
readingisadoingword's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
I read this as part of #12PlaysIn12Months
This was another gem that I would never otherwise have encountered myself.
It centres around Werner Heisenberg's visit to his friend and mentor Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in 1941. With Denmark under Nazi occupation and Heisenberger being German the meeting was necessarily fraught. There is little indisputable evidence of what was discussed but a discussion of the possibility of using atomic energy to manufacture weapons is accepted as the root of the legendary conversation.
This play deals with so many great questions - the reliability of memory, the relationships and competition between scientists, the moral dilemmas encountered in the face of the pursuit of progress, what constitutes active resistance.
The physics concepts of uncertainty and chain reactions are reflected in the human quandries of this story.
This was a fascinating read and really made me interested to learn more about the characters involved....so many ifs!
This was another gem that I would never otherwise have encountered myself.
It centres around Werner Heisenberg's visit to his friend and mentor Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in 1941. With Denmark under Nazi occupation and Heisenberger being German the meeting was necessarily fraught. There is little indisputable evidence of what was discussed but a discussion of the possibility of using atomic energy to manufacture weapons is accepted as the root of the legendary conversation.
This play deals with so many great questions - the reliability of memory, the relationships and competition between scientists, the moral dilemmas encountered in the face of the pursuit of progress, what constitutes active resistance.
The physics concepts of uncertainty and chain reactions are reflected in the human quandries of this story.
This was a fascinating read and really made me interested to learn more about the characters involved....so many ifs!
annathebooksiread's review against another edition
challenging
informative
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
rahmar's review against another edition
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
whatjohanneread's review against another edition
dark
emotional
informative
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
ajsterkel's review against another edition
1.0
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.
jasonfurman's review against another edition
4.0
I didn't love this as much as I wanted to. This play centers around two meetings between Bohr and Heisenberg in Copenhagen. The first in 1941, during the war, where the play conveys the 'uncertainty' (get it...) about what Heisenberg's intentions were, what happened at ...the meeting -- was Heisenberg warning Bohr about the German bomb project, deliberately sabotaging it, seeking help on it, looking for someone to spy on the Americans, etc. The second is in 1947 in which they try, unsuccessfully, to resolve that uncertainty. All of the story told in the form of dialogue between the two of them and Bohr's wife after they all have died.
It is well done, there is lots of thought-provoking dialogue and thoughts, and you can't blame Frayn for the lack of anything resembling clear resolution.
But somehow something was still missing.
It is well done, there is lots of thought-provoking dialogue and thoughts, and you can't blame Frayn for the lack of anything resembling clear resolution.
But somehow something was still missing.
classicalbaird's review against another edition
emotional
hopeful
informative
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5