You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Scan barcode
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
sivanib's review against another edition
emotional
mysterious
reflective
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
cornelio3's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
inspiring
reflective
sad
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
kitkatt's review against another edition
1.0
not really sure what to say about this it was a science book i had to read for class and i did not enjoy because chemistry and physics are not my thing that is all
tanisha_112's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
mysterious
reflective
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.75
Content Warnings
Minor: War
kjvelz's review against another edition
1.0
I saw this Fall 2014, and it remains the worst play I have ever seen. I really want those two hours of my life back.
chris_gmn's review against another edition
3.0
Reading a play rather than watching it doesn’t do enough justice to the source material. In my opinion, theatrical performance is a unique medium that doesn’t translate well into literature. While it may be a wonderful play, it is an average book, stripped of the experience intended for a stage performance.