Scan barcode
jhouses's review
5.0
Vale, técnicamente no me lo he leido, pero he ido a ver la obra de teatro en versión de Emilio Gutiérrez Caba, Carlos Hipólito y Malena Gutiérrez y todavía estoy flipando.
Se trata de una obra maravillosa que pone a prueba la inteligencia y la cultura del espectador alejándose completamente de ese mínimo común denoninador que parece dominar las expresiones culturales de la actualidadPeter Bogdanovich. [a:Michael Frayn|57501|Michael Frayn|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1230345003p2/57501.jpg], a quien ya reverenciaba como autor de la magnífica farsa [b:Noises Off|160194|Noises Off|Michael Frayn|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1320486520l/160194._SY75_.jpg|746005] que llevara al cine Peter Bogdanovich; demuestra una comprensión absoluta de los entresijos de la física atómica y de la situación histórica que propició la reunión de Bohr y Heisenberg en Copenhague y despliega un alarde de posibilidades e interpretaciones sobre la reunión en un juego filosófico de increíble alcance.
Y, aunque no parece corresponder a esta plataforma, la interpretacion de los antedichos actores es algo que recordaré mucho tiempo.
Se trata de una obra maravillosa que pone a prueba la inteligencia y la cultura del espectador alejándose completamente de ese mínimo común denoninador que parece dominar las expresiones culturales de la actualidadPeter Bogdanovich. [a:Michael Frayn|57501|Michael Frayn|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1230345003p2/57501.jpg], a quien ya reverenciaba como autor de la magnífica farsa [b:Noises Off|160194|Noises Off|Michael Frayn|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1320486520l/160194._SY75_.jpg|746005] que llevara al cine Peter Bogdanovich; demuestra una comprensión absoluta de los entresijos de la física atómica y de la situación histórica que propició la reunión de Bohr y Heisenberg en Copenhague y despliega un alarde de posibilidades e interpretaciones sobre la reunión en un juego filosófico de increíble alcance.
Y, aunque no parece corresponder a esta plataforma, la interpretacion de los antedichos actores es algo que recordaré mucho tiempo.
enyaxiang's review
5.0
This was lying around my house and turned out to be one of the best scripts I’ve ever read. It brings together science and humanity, clever parallels between principles of quantum mechanics and discrepancies of memory and history—with only three characters, no stage directions, and no director’s notes. I’ve never seen dialogue used so willfully. Listen, the great men of science might have changed the world, but I don’t exactly want to be pals with them. But it just works here. And probably because it didn’t try to glorify them (shocker)—it just explored pride and war and friendship and personal responsibility and all the tiny terrible things that bother us about ourselves
This is everything Oppenheimer could have been tbh
This is everything Oppenheimer could have been tbh
scarlatte16's review
informative
mysterious
reflective
fast-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
4.5
rachelsweeney's review
dark
informative
medium-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
2.0
danilanglie's review
3.5
I remember reading this in undergrad, freshman year, which was... oh gosh... 12 years ago now, and being being super blown away by it. It definitely left an impression on me, and when I later tried to write a one-act play with some friends, I can see how this play and Arcadia, something else I read that first year in college, imprinted on me. The idea of retelling the same scene again and again, trying to find the right way for the scene to play out, relitigating faulty memories, worrying over the past and its implications again and again... I love that as a theme and how it plays out here. I bet this is an electrifying story to see on stage in the hands of talented actors.
But in terms of the content, I kind of think it ends up being a pretty facile moral argument. This idea of... did Heisenberg intentionally delay the German effort to build an atomic bomb, or did he unintentionally delay it out of subconscious guilt, or did he really try very hard and just fail... like, don't get me wrong, it's certainly a chilling sliding doors question for the history books, but the central conceit, the idea that there was something fateful about this meeting between Bohr and Heisenberg in 1941, just doesn't really bear out.
I think my favorite aspect is the moments where the three characters are all telling the audience that they know what the others are thinking, reflecting in a circle around things that cannot be changed: namely, the death by drowning of Niels and Margrethe's son, or certain conversations they had, the order in which things were discovered, who's to get credit and why it matters.
Irrespective of the actual plot and questions being asked, to me this is a play that's about memory and guilt. What can we trick our own brains into believing, in order to assuage our sense of responsibility? Or, if we already feel guilty, how do we dig ourselves deeper into that guilt by making the world revolve around us?
It's also, of course, quite cleverly a play about physics. I don't want to undersell the cleverness of the uncertainty principle and how it's portrayed as metaphor here. There is something true and haunting about the fact that we can't see ourselves as well as we see other people, we can't observe ourselves perfectly, or if we try, we lose the grip on what we're thinking about and trying to accomplish.
I am ultimately really glad I revisited this, even if it didn't knock my socks off the way I remember it doing in school!
But in terms of the content, I kind of think it ends up being a pretty facile moral argument. This idea of... did Heisenberg intentionally delay the German effort to build an atomic bomb, or did he unintentionally delay it out of subconscious guilt, or did he really try very hard and just fail... like, don't get me wrong, it's certainly a chilling sliding doors question for the history books, but the central conceit, the idea that there was something fateful about this meeting between Bohr and Heisenberg in 1941, just doesn't really bear out.
I think my favorite aspect is the moments where the three characters are all telling the audience that they know what the others are thinking, reflecting in a circle around things that cannot be changed: namely, the death by drowning of Niels and Margrethe's son, or certain conversations they had, the order in which things were discovered, who's to get credit and why it matters.
Irrespective of the actual plot and questions being asked, to me this is a play that's about memory and guilt. What can we trick our own brains into believing, in order to assuage our sense of responsibility? Or, if we already feel guilty, how do we dig ourselves deeper into that guilt by making the world revolve around us?
It's also, of course, quite cleverly a play about physics. I don't want to undersell the cleverness of the uncertainty principle and how it's portrayed as metaphor here. There is something true and haunting about the fact that we can't see ourselves as well as we see other people, we can't observe ourselves perfectly, or if we try, we lose the grip on what we're thinking about and trying to accomplish.
I am ultimately really glad I revisited this, even if it didn't knock my socks off the way I remember it doing in school!
sfletcher26's review against another edition
4.0
A complex dark and multilayered play based on the meeting between Bohr and Heisenberg in 1941. A play that needs reading and rereading and probably reading again.
charlibirb's review
4.0
Thanks to Elizabeth for this copy of Copenhagen. Really great play. I love 3 person philosophical plays. Art is an example. Very well-defined characters. I'd love to see this live.
marioncromb's review against another edition
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
A good play. Presents various explanations for Heisenberg's wartime meeting with Bohr, and the viewpoints of former colleagues on opposite sides of a war - one side which built an atomic bomb, and the other that didnt.
An interesting look at a period of time where, somewhat incredibly, the outcome of a world war hinged on the work of theoretical physicists in an astoundingly new area of physics - quantum mechanics - which was in itself a complete reframing of our understanding of everything, revealing inherent indeterminacy, which this play is keen to parallel with human memory/intent/understanding.
Incredibly well researched, but loses something being read and not seeing it performed. However the postscript to the play provides a lot more interesting detail and some of the background of choices made in the writing of the play.
An interesting look at a period of time where, somewhat incredibly, the outcome of a world war hinged on the work of theoretical physicists in an astoundingly new area of physics - quantum mechanics - which was in itself a complete reframing of our understanding of everything, revealing inherent indeterminacy, which this play is keen to parallel with human memory/intent/understanding.
Incredibly well researched, but loses something being read and not seeing it performed. However the postscript to the play provides a lot more interesting detail and some of the background of choices made in the writing of the play.
saraweissman's review
dark
reflective
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.75