Copenhagen

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 (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 lack of knowledge of Bohr's achievements. With 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 here. (Einstein's achievements were in relativity, not quantum theory.) Another, much better line from the stage play 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!)

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.

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.

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.

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.