Copenhagen

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.

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.

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!)

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.

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.