copenhagen michael frayn
Please write at least one page (or upload a video, but must be at least 3 minutes and answer all the questions below) response to the film version of the play Copenhagen. Use specific examples from the film to support your points (number your responses, and break up so your response isn’t one long paragraph). Link to film: Copenhagen (Links to an external site.) on Films on Demand
1. Why did Heisenberg visit Bohr in 1941?
2. What does the play say about self-knowledge?
3. Frayn believes that not only large events, but actually some quite small event can change the world, and that it’s only looking back with perspective that we can see this. What (possibly) happens in this play that changes the course of human history?
4. Frayn has said that, although the film has to cut a fair amount of the science, he thinks the film version still makes sense. Do you agree/disagree? Naturalism (or realism) is the natural mode for film. But you can’t really stick to naturalism in this film, given its subject matter and form (repeats itself, cycles back). What is it about the characters that means a film version can’t be completely natural? They’re actually dead, having essentially come back from beyond the grave to have this conversation again.
Given that limit with the film version vs. a stage version, answer these questions:. a) How does the film version illustrate the ideas of the written play? b) What devices does it use to do this? c) How effective are they?
5. What would you imagine in a live stage production of this play, different from the film adaptation?