IMDb user comments for
Copenhagen (2002) (TV)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

14 comments in total

---

16 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Brilliant, moving, cathartic, 28 January 2004
Author: Dennis Littrell (dalittrell@yahoo.com) from SoCal

Most viewers of this extraordinary play believe that it doesn't answer the question of why Werner Heisenberg came to Copenhagen in 1941 to visit his mentor Niels Bohr. And this is true: playwright Michael Frayn does not give a definitive answer to that intriguing question. But he does give an interpretation.

We must go to the "final draft" of their recapitulation of what happened--the "their" being the three of them, Heisenberg, Bohr and his wife Margrethe, who appear as ghosts of themselves in the now empty Bohr residence. In the climatic revisionist scene, instead of walking away from Heisenberg in the woods, Bohr contains his anger and confronts his one-time protege. He tells Heisenberg to do the calculation to determine how much fissionable material (a "critical mass") would be necessary to sustain a chain reaction.

Heisenberg had believed without doing the calculation that the amount was somewhere in the range of a metric ton. As he does the calculation in his head he realizes that the amount would be much, much less, only 50 kilos. This changes everything because it made the bomb entirely possible. Frayn's point is that it is far better that Bohr did not tell Heisenberg to do the calculation because if he had, it is possible that Nazi Germany would have developed an atomic bomb under Heisenberg's direction.

But this does not answer the question of why Heisenberg came to Copenhagen. Margrethe has her own answer: he came to show himself off. The little man who is now the reigning theoretical physicist in Germany had come to stand tall and to let Bohr, who was half Jewish, know that he had the ability to save him from the Nazis.

This is the "psychological" answer and it plays very well. Heisenberg, like most Germans felt humiliated by the defeat in the Great War and had suffered severely in the economic deprivations that followed. And like most Germans Heisenberg, who was not a Nazi, compromised his principles by acquiescing in Nazi rule because he believed that it would return Germany to "its rightful place" as an economic and military leader in the world. He came to Copenhagen in 1941 in triumph. His triumph, understandably, was not well received.

The more blunt question of did Heisenberg expect to find out whether the Americans were making a bomb or to get Bohr to help with the German project is also answered in a psychological way. The answer is no, because he knew that Bohr would not help him even if he could. As it turns out at the time Bohr had no knowledge of what the Allies were doing. The other question, a question that would haunt Heisenberg for the rest of his life, was did he delay the German bomb project in order to prevent the Nazis from acquiring the bomb--as he claimed--or was the fact that they were not able to develop a bomb just a matter of not having the ability? To this question playwright Frayn's answer is that Heisenberg would have developed the bomb if he had been able. This answer is the generally accepted one based on the historical evidence, part of which comes from some careless words from Heisenberg himself that were recorded by British intelligence after Heisenberg was captured and sent to England. What Frayn does so very well in his brilliant play is show us that Heisenberg's need to succeed and his need to feel national pride would not allow him to behave otherwise.

The direction of this PBS production by Howard Davies relies heavily on an interesting device. Bohr's wife becomes an objectifying factor who is able to step back from the emotional situation and to see both men clearly and to guide the audience toward an understanding of their relationship. Over the years, she and Niels Bohr served as surrogate parents to Heisenberg. He was the little boy who came home to his parents in 1941 to say, Look at me. I am a great success. Only problem was his "success" could not be separated from the Nazi occupation of their country, and Heisenberg was too obtuse and insensitive to see that.

In truth, Heisenberg was not entirely aware of his own motivation. He did not know why he came to Copenhagen. Neither did Bohr. But Margrathe did. An accompanying point to this idea is the story of Bohr bluffing Heisenberg and others during a poker game some years before. It appeared from the fall of the cards that it was extremely unlikely that Bohr had made a straight that would win the pot, and yet he kept on betting until all the others threw in, and then when he showed his hand, he had no straight. He had fooled himself. Frayn's position is that in believing he had come to Copenhagen for innocent reasons, Heisenberg was unconsciously fooling himself. Furthermore the fact that he had not done the calculation was equivalent to Bohr's not looking back at his hole cards to see what he really had.

This is not an easy play. I have seen it twice and benefitted from the second viewing. It is not, however, a play only accessible to intellectuals. The ideas are presented in a clear manner so that any reasonably intelligent person can understand them. Frayn employs an elaborate metaphor involving Heisenberg's famous uncertainty principle to elucidate the relationship between Bohr and Heisenberg. They are particles that will collide: Heisenberg the elusive electron, neither here nor there, the very essence of uncertainty, Bohr the stolid neutron. Davies has the two circling and circling one another, even chasing one another, as in a dance while Margrathe watches.

I found the play brilliant, moving, and ultimately cathartic as all great plays should be. Davies' direction and the sense of time and place greatly facilitated my enjoyment. And the acting by the three players, Stephen Rea (Bohr), Daniel Craig, and in particular, Francesca Annis, was outstanding.

---

14 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Brilliant drama of ideas, 9 February 2003

Author: F Gwynplaine MacIntyre (Borroloola@earthlink.net) from Minffordd, North Wales

I saw Michael Frayn's stage play 'Copenhagen' in London ... in fact, I was technically *IN* the play, as Peter Davison's set design seated some of the audience members onstage directly above the actors, like a tribunal sitting in judgment, and I chose to watch the play from one of these onstage seats. (I also saw the play on Broadway in the same circumstances, so technically I was onstage during both productions.) This brilliant drama is basically an interplay of ideas between three highly intelligent minds: a concept which works better onstage than in a film or a teleplay. So, when 'Copenhagen' was adapted for television by the BBC, I was eager to see how they would 'open up' this story ... and whether or not the transition would work.

It works astonishingly well. During the Second World War, brilliant young physicist Werner Heisenberg was in Germany, working towards the Nazi government's efforts to develop a nuclear bomb. Meanwhile, Heisenberg's older mentor and friend, Niels Bohr, was working quietly in his native Denmark (a nation under Nazi occupation at the time) along with his wife Margrethe. Bohr's wife was not a trained physicist, but many people who knew the Bohrs stated that she was an active partner in his work, and that Mrs Bohr deserves to share credit for Bohr's achievements. In 1941, Heisenberg journeyed to Copenhagen to visit his old friends the Bohrs, although their disparate allegiances during the war had strained the friendship. To this day, historians debate why Heisenberg visited the Bohrs at this time. Also debated is Heisenberg's loyalty to the Nazi cause. Did Heisenberg actively try (and fail) to develop an atomic bomb for the Third Reich? Or was Heisenberg secretly an anti-Nazi who covertly harmed the German war effort by pretending to work on the bomb whilst sabotaging his labmates' efforts? As with the assassination of JFK, there are many different theories as to what 'really' happened here. Heisenberg devised the Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics, so it's ironic that we can never be certain about what really occurred in Copenhagen.

The tv version of 'Copenhagen' is brilliant. The action is opened up by having Heisenberg journey to Copenhagen (on a vintage 1940s railway train) while an internal monologue plays on the soundtrack. When he meets the Bohrs, the three of them stroll through various (extremely beautiful) buildings and landmarks in Copenhagen, with an occasional Nazi soldier walking past to remind us that Denmark is effectively part of the Third Reich. The period detail is impeccable throughout, and the locations are a delight to look at.

The script of this teleplay is actually superior to the stage version. In the stage play, after Bohr is identified as 'the pope of quantum physics', his wife replies: 'yes, you were the pope ... but Einstein was God'. This is a cheap joke, meant to raise a laugh from audience members who recognise Einstein yet who feel uncomfortable with their lack of knowledge about Bohr's achievements. With all due respect to Einstein, the historical fact is that Niels Bohr achieved far more in the field of quantum physics than any other three scientists combined, including Einstein ... so I was grateful that the Einstein joke was removed. Another, much better line is retained, when Heisenberg contemplates the concept of 'quantum morality' ... in other words, the journey from Good to Evil (or vice versa) can only be made in a single quantum leap, with no gradual transition from one state to the other. Intriguing!

I wish that the script of 'Copenhagen' (stage or screen version) had included a crucial irony which was mentioned in the playbill of the London production: namely, that most of the important work in the development of the atomic bomb was achieved by Jewish scientists, precisely **because** of policies implemented by the Nazi government. In Nazi Germany, applied physics was considered a much more prestigious field of research than theoretical physics, so Jewish scientists were shut out of employment opportunities in the former, and they concentrated their research efforts in the latter ... which was the field that developed the atomic bomb.

The excellent actor Stephen Rea does fine work as Bohr, and his castmates are splendid too. If you're looking for car chases or action sequences, 'Copenhagen' is not for you. But if you want to experience brilliant acting, sumptuous locales and an exchange of provoking ideas, then I recommend 'Copenhagen' ... and I rate this tv movie 10 points out of 10. This fascinating drama won't Bohr you. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

---

12 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
A collision of physics, metaphysics, humanity and history, 1 November 2004

Author: paulw7 from Sydney, Australia

Ostensibly about a meeting between Niels and Margrethe Bohr and Werner Heisenberg at Bohr's home in Copenhagen in 1941.

Physics, relativity and quantum mechanics collide with geopolitics, morality, existentialism, humanity and friendship in a few moments of time, told and re-told as seen from different perspectives.

The first part intriguing perspectives on events of history. It builds into a potentially cataclysmic clash of relatives, memories and thought experiments and is ultimately about these few precious moment of life that are grated us and what we choose to do with them.

Copenhagen was a brilliant play and is a superb film. I find myself intrigued, engaged and uplifted.

---

9 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
A Great Modern-Day Rashomon, 11 April 2004

Author: Sentinela

A genius scriptwriter takes an ambiguous, un-recorded, wartime conversation, and turns it into a riveting modern-day "Rashomon". Through the exploration of several possible stories, he takes us on an emotional journey into the frontiers of scientific thought, morality and humanity. Bohr and Heisenberg were two of a handful of the greatest intellects ever to walk the face of this planet. The film brings the viewer into an intimate encounter with those two formidable characters, at one of the most evil periods of mankind's history, and lets the viewer in on their most profound personal dilemmas, dilemmas which had the capacity to have a dramatic effect on the lives [and deaths] of millions. Only three actors take part, and they do it very well, especially Rea who plays Bohr. Highly recommended.

---

7 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Amazing, 10 December 2002
Author: Angelica (nicks_girl192001@yahoo.com) from Texas

When I saw this on PBS I was blown away. I've always been interested in that time period and whenever I do find a film based during the time I look into it. The way that it was acted and filmed was amazing. It made you think and really get into the film, not just watch it, but to become part of it. The acting was amazing and the characters were portrayed realistically. You got a feel of what was going on in their lives and how the events of the war shaped them. I'm glad I recorded, so I can watch it whenever I can. I highly recommend this film.

---

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
I'd never thought of it that way before., 25 May 2003

Author: jscotti from Tucson, Arizona

What a great film. I was blown away by the questions this film asked. I had always assumed that Heisenberg was basically a Nazi and really was developing the atom bomb for Hitler only to fall short because he did not have the time or ability or support. But this play and film draws that totally into question. Regardless of whether that speculation is valid, it is a wonderful look at the ethics of science. After seeing this film on PBS last year, when I saw it was going to be a play at a local theater, I had to go see that version as well. Both versions have their strong points and both were enjoyable. If you're a scientist or interested in science, I highly recommend seeing either the play, the film or both.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
An excellent film, 21 January 2007

Author: netsutty from United Kingdom

Over the years the meeting between two old friends, physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, which took place in Copenhagen during 1941, has been the subject of much speculation. In particular, Heisenberg's motives for calling the meeting have been scrutinized and brought into question given the nature of his work at the time on the Nazi's nuclear programme.

The structure of the screenplay brilliantly examines the varying interpretations of what took place during the meeting in a way that borrows from Eisenberg's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

I thought that the performances were, as you would expect from Francesca Annis, Daniel Craig and Stephen Rea, flawless, and despite the seemingly dry subject matter of a meeting between two physicists to discuss nuclear physics, I found the plot gripping.

I found it extremely enjoyable and would recommend it to anybody who enjoys a thought provoking story (regardless of the extent of their knowledge of nuclear physics!)

---

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
The play's the thing, 22 November 2003
Author: Philby-3 from Sydney, Australia

This film treatment of a play by Michael Frayne has an odd structure; essentially there are three attempts to tell the same story, wrapped around a subsequent ghostly appearance by the protagonists, Nils Bohr, his wife Margrethe and Werner Heisenberg.

In this correspondent's education, Bohr, of the Bohr atom, and Heisenberg of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, were two of the giants of 20th century theoretical physics. The story revolves round Heisenberg's mysterious visit to his old friend and mentor Bohr in September 1941 in German occupied Copenhagen. Was Heisenberg, no Nazi but a patriotic German, trying to find out how far the Allies had got with nuclear fission? Was he trying to use Bohr to persuade the German High Command that building a fission bomb was too difficult? Did he just have the hots for Margrethe (herself a physicist)?

In a way, the answer doesn't matter much; shall we say the ending is cloaked in uncertainty, but the acting is very fine and some of the dialogue sparkling. However, it is also a bit dull at times. For some reason Mr and Mrs Bohr are shown as inhabiting a vast belle epoc mansion (without a single servant) and the cast and camera wander round the building and its formal gardens in a fairly aimless fashion. Even as a film it would have worked with a just a couple of sets.

Ironies abound in this story. The Nazis allowed Jewish scientists to work in the theoretical physics area thinking it less important than applied physics, so that by the time they were finally expelled to Britain and the US the same Jewish scientists had made theoretical breakthroughs which proved vital in the development of the atomic bomb. As Bohr points out ruefully, Heisenberg, working for the Nazis, never did anything to kill anybody, whereas he, Bohr, spent two years at Los Alamos after his escape from Denmark in 1943 helping out with the Manhattan Project. Yet it was Heisenberg who had to convince the world after the war that he was not a Nazi collaborator.

On a personal level, Bohr and Heisenberg had a relationship going back 20 years, when Heisenberg, as a young student had had the termerity to challenge the (then) recent Nobel prize-winner's mathematics. Two people as smart as they were with egos to match were unlikely to have a smooth friendship, and so it turns out. Margarethe who apparently assisted Bohr with his work, is a bit of a spare wheel here, though Francesca Annis has such a good presence you hardly notice the fact. Stephen Rea as Bohr is wonderfully tired and world weary and Daniel Craig is very much the younger eager beaver as Heisenberg.

I've not seen the play, but I suspect this property would work better on stage. Opening out the scenery is a distraction here. Still, as Bohr is wont to say, the ideas are `interesting', even if the questions posed can't really be answered.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Well written and pretty interesting even if it is hard work here and there for the uninitiated, 2 September 2006
Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK

Occupied Copenhagen during the second world war is the stage for the meeting of colleagues Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. Young Werner has come to talk to Niels. The former is leading the faltering German research programme into nuclear energy while the latter is the acknowledged as the leading expert in nuclear fission by the physics community. Years after the event this play brings Niels, Werner and Margrethe Bohr back together again to discuss their different interpretations of their meetings and their relative roles within the development of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.

Although this is not the most accessible play or subject, it is still a rather engaging film. My knowledge of the development of nuclear theory physics could be comfortably fitted onto the back of a postage stamp (and not one of those bigger, commemorative ones either) and I had never heard of any of these people or the theories they discussed in this film. But yet I understood the majority of it and found myself easily carried along by the dialogue. I imagine it would have been more interesting if I had had this knowledge but as it was it was still interesting. But it wasn't gripping or that engaging. By having the characters look backwards together the script does a good job of explaining the discussions and their wider ramifications to a degree. I say "to a degree" because I thought it could have done it better for someone like me, someone who knows nothing about anything when they press play for the first time.

The dialogue is well written though, varying between explaining the theory and debating the morals well without ever making it seem forced – again a strength of the "looking back" approach. Craig and Rae impress in their delivery but I would have liked more feeling to run through them. Annis stands up well with both the men and she is used well to provide insight from outside of the two main characters. Davies' direction is pretty good and retains the feel of a play without restricting the locations too much or making it feel stage bound.

Overall then an interesting film but one that will have limited appeal and I understand why. It does well to make it accessible to viewers not familiar with the subject, although it still does have room for improvement as I wanted it to impact me more than it did. Worth a look though as something different which is well written and pretty interesting.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, 13 June 2003

Author: blue_sundog

This is well done and thoroughly enjoyable portrayal of the moral hesitation and dissembling that go hand and hand with Heisenberg and his efforts with respect to the bomb. It is well acted with informative and intelligent dialogue that brings two of the leading scientists of the 20th century to life while examining all facets of the issues surrounding Heisenberg's visit to Copenhagen and the consequences of his efforts to develop a bomb for Nazi Germany.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	External reviews
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history