Masks and the men who wear them.

[Style]

Superman and Batman, while hardly unique in this regard anymore, still hold the distinction of establishing the dual identity paradigm in Superhero fiction. That is, the idea that in addition to a superpowered colorful identity of crimefighting, they also maintain the persona of the ordinary person.

And because Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne interact with the world in a different way than Superman and Batman do, this quickly would complicate a discussion of their respective personalities and pychologies. Because, in a very real way, we start treading into the realm of dealing with four characters instead of two.

So, in understanding these two characters, the question often comes up: Which Identity represents the true persona and personality of the character, and which is the "disguise," or "put-on," for lack of a better term.

The question is often asked as though it were an profound and revolutionary inquiry into understanding who they are. And maybe it was once a more ground-breaking thing to ask. Ofcourse, in this day and age, we have answers to that. I'm sure you all know them, because they've become rhetoric. Clark Kent is the true personality, Superman is the disguise or extension of that personality. And in turn, Batman is the true personality, and Bruce Wayne is nothing more than a disguise. And those savvy with the history would remark that this is a flip-flop, nay evolution of the older view, which saw Clark Kent as the disguise of Superman and Batman as the disguise of Bruce Wayne. And they may even go on to expound upon how enlightened and deep this is compared to the old view.

Right?

I admit, I used to consume this line of reasoning hook, line and sinker myself. It's so obvious, logical, and interesting. Why, how else could it be? Bruce Wayne must be the disguise, And so is Superman. Batman and Clark Kent represent the true nature of the character. Ofcourse, even then I had these niggling suspicions that this view was eliminating essential elements from their characterizations, but I couldn't grasp at it's flaws until I saw...

Until I sat down and watched Superman: The Movie again earlier this year.

I tell you, that was an eye-opener. First off, even though I always liked it, it wasn't until this year that I realized how good it really is. But, more importantly, I realized that Christopher Reeves gives a performance as Clark Kent/Superman so nuanced that it makes the whole Man/Mask schism dynamic seem not only entirely too simplistic, but it also seems to miss the point.

Now, from opinions I've read, many people simply believe that that film portrays Superman as the true personality, and Clark Kent as the put on, in "typical Pre-Crisis fashion." But that's not true at all. Watching back through that film, it becomes clear that neither Clark Kent nor Superman represented his true person, but that there is honesty in both. In effect, both represent very real aspects of his personality, and in a sense both present him as he really is, to an extent. But he can't be entirely honest about who he really is in either guise. In that sense, Christopher Reeve's Kent is a man constantly in limbo, rarely to never able to truly "be himself," and frustrated that both Clark and Superman can get close to Lois, but unable to composite the relationships together to get the intimacy with Lois that he really desires.

As already stated, this view renders the man/disguise divide moot, not questioning which identity is real, but how he can reconcile two real but deeply and sadly separated parts of himself.

However, giving the other view it's due, we can look into how this contrasts with the "Clark is real, Superman is the disguise" view, which is used in, among other interpretations, in Superman: The Animated Series.

In that series, we see Superman portrayed as we would expect if the Clark Kent persona is emphasized. In keeping with his Midwestern farm roots, Superman has a very solid, small-town sense of Right and Wrong, but enough empathy to recognize "shades of Gray," (especially concerning villains who got "a raw deal," such as Metallo and Volcana,) but not enough cynacism to allow his perception of that shade of gray to erode his concept of Right and Wrong in the first place. Above all, Superman is portrayed as doing right by and for everyone, simply because it is "The right thing to do." This is an excellent way to portray Superman.

But where the problem may lie is in how the series portrays Clark. After all, if Superman is an extension of Clark Kent in this view, then you would expect Clark to not only have nearly the same personality, but also to embody all these principals "in the pure," or "in the raw." But that's not what we encounter. Whenever this version of Clark does exhibit personality, it is often fiesty and snide, and occasionally almost mean-spirited. In fact, his "Clark Kent" persona seems chiefly designed so that he can prove he can match Lois Lane at her own game, as "Clark Kent" veritably apes her personality. Perhaps this is why there is no romantic tension between Clark and Lois on the show, because this primes her to think of him more like a little brother. In fact, this would probably hinder a romance should he ever reveal his identity to her. All that said, in the show "Superman" seems to embody all the things that make Clark Clark, but "Clark" merely seems to be imitating Lois Lane. In that sense, the series falls prey to precisely what it was avoiding: that Superman is the true identity, and Clark is merely the put-on.

The fact of the matter is, "Clark Kent" never seemed more alive or distinct to me than when Reeves supposedly portrayed him as a "bumbler." All that to say, that the "Clark is the reality, Superman the disguise" is a premise I've come to reject, despite how well-meaning it is. The truth is more complicated.

And because the truth was more complicated in the case of Superman, it makes the man/disguise dynamic in Bruce Wayne/Batman also suspect. After all, why should one disregard Bruce Wayne as "a disguise, nothing more." Why assume that Batman is the only true aspect of his personality? After all, doesn't Bruce Wayne do good in Gotham as well, and doesn't he have interesting, valid, and important relationships when it comes to the Batman mythos? After all, the Batman is story is primarily a story about the Wayne family. One can't just disregard that. And it was Bruce who dedicated himself to justice, to the pursuit of right. And he does so in and out of costume. So shouldn't that imply that the "Bruce is the real identity, Batman the disguise" was the right one all along? Yes, I know, even that it too simplistic.

Anyway, that is my rejection of the current schismatic view of secret identities. I feel it disregards valid aspects of characterization. If you took the time to read it, thank you. I'm not sure if in the end I've said anything meaningful, or if for all my rambling I've even said anything at all.

[Casey Mack]

i read it all [very good work! ] and I concur with mostly everything. I do think Dean cain portrayed Clark kent better then Chris Reeve did. In the 1978 Superman we are lend ot beleive Superman is the real persona and Clark is the disguise. In the lois and Clark show Clark Kent is shown as the real person and superman as a public image. Now Bruce wayne is not a really a disguise..cause Bruce camebefore Batman. Bruce is just a toned down version of Batman...the reverse of the Clark kent Superman thing.
________
AMATEUR TUBE

[ryeck]

WOW Style, excellent work. Your essay is very thoughtful and insightful. It's funny, because I was thinking about Superman: The Movie today, and how the portrayal of Superman/Clark Kent by Christopher Reeve compares to the portrayal as seen in Superman: The Animated Series. Reeve's portrayal in the movies (especially the first two) was near perfect and held to the established history of the character. Not until STAS had their been another protrayal of Superman/Clark Kent as close to that of the feature films.

While I agree with much of what you say here Style, I'm not sure I agree with the idea of "Clark" being more like Lois in STAS, as far as Clark being snide and mean-spirited when he exhibits personality as Clark. . I'm going to have to go back and watch my STAS DVD Vol. 1

Anyway Style, Great Work

[Reverend]

I found that the main difference between Reeve's performance as Clark the journalist and the character's portrayal in STAS is that the animated Clark was shown to be a little more professional in his job as a journalist.
That is he is actually interested in getting the story (and indeed the by line) to the point where he'd even compete with Lois.
The difference for me is that this credits Clark with having a keen intelligence and while he's not a detective of Bruce's calibre, it shows us that Kent isn't the clueless muppet that some think he is.

As for the question of which is the "real" persona; I'd have to agree with Brian Singer on this one. That is that BOTH the Clark the (sometimes) bumbling journalist AND Superman are disguises and the real person is split between Clark the (not bumbling) farm boy from Kansas and Kal-El, last son of Krypton.
As I see it, the two "public disguise" are each an exaggeration of those two sides respectively, the idea being to make each seam like a completely different person, so that those close to him (in either guise) won't put two and two together.I can only presume that Supes can drop his Kansas accent at will.


In the case of Bruce Wayne/Batman, I think this question depends purely on who's writing him.
If it's Frank Miller for instance, it's hard-arsed nutcase Batman all the way.



Personally I interpret the character much the same way as I do Kal-El, only in this case it's based more on emotion than personality.
The way I see it, the Batman is an expression of his rage, while the billionaire industrialist is an expression of his compassion (the most essential part if you ask me). The playboy image I suppose is the closest thing he has to a real disguise, which serves double duty as encouraging people to dismiss him as a layabout useless member of society (certainly not vigilante material) and allowing him to do some real good without the mask and attracting too much attention.

Like with Clark (and lets be honest, most people) the "Real" Bruce is none of the images he puts on for the public, he's no more the Dark Knight than he is the generous philanthropist or the reckless playboy and at the same time he's all of these.
When you really get down to it, the closest description to my idea of who Bruce really is ironically came from the Joker in RotJ. To me he really is still a little boy, crying for him parents. Although in my mind he's not in a playsuit, he's still in that Alleyway.



Of course that's just me, the beauty of interpretation is that there is no right answer.

[Stu]

Of course that's just me, the beauty of interpretation is that there is no right answer.

Spot on.

Whilst the movies and cartoons versions of Superman are completly different from one another, neither is wrong, nor right. Whilst I personally prefer Clark as a bumbling fool as opposed to the sharp journalist (I find it far more beliveable, not a chance anyone would think that Clark was Superman, accept for Lois, of course) the cartoon isn't wrong, per se, simply different from the movie, and to an extent, the comic as well.

This begs the question, how did the cartoon do in it's version of Clark? I might be in the minority, but I've never been too keen on him, don't get me wrong, he's perfectly likeable, but that's about it. He's not as interesting as Bruce Wayne out of the costume. I think a little romance with Lois might have helped, as long as it wasn't overdone and have them spend 5 minutes kissing each episode (thank you Dean Cain). There's the odd sign of a brilliant Clark Kent, especially in The Late Mr. Kent and The Last Song Of Krypton Part 2, but the rest of it seems to be good... not great.

As far as Batman goes, I think Wayne's playboy image is a facade. He's shown to be a skirt chasing, booze flowing party boy, but he doesn't drink and the girls are usually dumped by the following afternoon. His character is essentially a man that wants to help people, be it either as a billionare or a masked vigilante.

Interesting thoughts though, Style.

[Phantasm]

The way I see it, the Batman is an expression of his rage, while the billionaire industrialist is an expression of his compassion (the most essential part if you ask me). The playboy image I suppose is the closest thing he has to a real disguise, which serves double duty as encouraging people to dismiss him as a layabout useless member of society (certainly not vigilante material) and allowing him to do some real good without the mask and attracting too much attention.

Like with Clark (and lets be honest, most people) the "Real" Bruce is none of the images he puts on for the public, he's no more the Dark Knight than he is the generous philanthropist or the reckless playboy and at the same time he's all of these.
When you really get down to it, the closest description to my idea of who Bruce really is ironically came from the Joker in RotJ. To me he really is still a little boy, crying for him parents. Although in my mind he's not in a playsuit, he's still in that Alleyway.
Of course that's just me, the beauty of interpretation is that there is no right answer.

Yeah. I see Batman in pretty much the same light as you do.
The happy-go-lucky playboy part of him is a facade but then again so is that brooding,enigmatic,dark side of him. Bruce Wayne in essence is a brilliant actor.

He is not a rich snob and he is not a brooding vigilante at heart. He is just a traumatized and anguished young man who who simply can't come to terms with the fact that his parents were brutally taken away from him. In a way that only seems to make sense to him, he's set himself in a position where he plays two extreme personalities, and the blend of which probably keeps him from succumbing to...some would say insanity.Those two above mentioned character traits are simply a result of his reaction to the true state of mind he has.He feels vulnerable so much so that that he develops two personas to save himself. It is evident in MOTP, that Bruce will never be able to live with himself while the guilt over his parents death continues to eat him. To save himself from that guilt, he conjures up Batman. And then to save Batman he developed the infamous 'Bruce Wayne' that us fan girls adore.

Bruce Wayne and BAtman are two extreme personalities, the lighthearted blend of which possibly is what Bruce wants to be, but due to mental instability can't. It's as if he has them both working along together so as to not loose sight of each other. Without either Batman or Bruce Wayne, the other would be lost. They simply balance each other out. And together help the real Bruce Wayne to not cross that line to insanity.

Contrary to popular belief, I say the man behind 'Bruce Wayne' is not 'Batman' and that the man behind the two is the one who spends most of his evenings kneeling in front of his parents graves, asking for their forgiveness. Yup and that is my poor lil Brucie!

[The Weed Of Cri]

In the DCAU, I see both Superman and Batman as living a lie. Superman's "true" identity is Kal-el, the last son of Krypton. It's down there in his DNA, and you can't get any deeper than that. But in the S: TAS episode "The Late Mr. Kent" (which I consider to be the definitive exploration of the topic) it's clear that he sees himself as Clark Kent first, Superman second, and probably Kal-el is a distant third. He has rejected his "true" identity to live under two others, both of which are technically false, however real they may be to him.

The same is true of Batman, who was born as Bruce Wayne, the heir and cornerstone of the Wayne financial empire. But in adulthood, Bruce Wayne's wealth exists primarily to finance Batman's war on crime. That's probably the only real reason why Batman ever takes off the mask anymore. Wayne is now Batman 24/7, and only uses the "Bruce Wayne" personna to further Batman's goals. Even when Wayne appears at social functions or hosts a party, it's only to keep Bruce Wayne active in society so the personna doesn't atrophy, like exercising a muscle to keep it strong. Even Wayne's philanthropic efforts can be seen as an extension of Batman's goals, because by starting a charity to alleviate poverty or creating a scholarship program for underpriveleged children, Wayne is attacking the root causes of crime. Essentially, Batman puts on a "mask" by taking his mask off.

The depth of these basically false identities can be seen in the characters' social interactions. Other than his fellow Kryptonians, the only characters who call Superman Kal-el are Brainiac and, for some inexplicable reason, Wonder Woman. And overwriting Batman's personna over Bruce Wayne's has serious repercussions for Wayne later in his life. In Batman Beyond, when Batman's heart condition forces him to retire, Bruce Wayne's life becomes utterly empty. He has gone from the most famous name on Gotham City (except for Batman of course), to being the Crazy Old Man who lives alone in a big spooky mansion with only his dog for company.

[Anthonynotes]

I'm wondering if who the "real" versions are to individuals is based mostly on how old one is/when one grew up (in light of the drastic changes made in the mid-80's to Supes and Bats)...

For Superman, I assume both Clark and Superman alter-egos are equally important, and that he can't be all of one or the other... though suppose he "truly" is Kal-El. Of course, one's "public face" is different than what one's like in private, another factor (would assume Ma and Pa Kent know the "real" him, vs. how his "pal" Jimmy Olsen would know him). An interesting take on all this was in the mid-70's three- or four-part story "Who Took the Super Out of Superman?", where for reasons unknown to Supes (until the story's end), he finds himself completely powerless while as Clark Kent, but superpowered when he's Superman. Supes decides to spend a week living as entirely Superman (no Clark), and a week living as Clark (no Superman), to see which side he thinks he might permanently have to choose...

For Batman, since Batman's characterization has been all over the place over the decades (unlike other characters), this one's more subjective, I suppose (though yes that pre-Crisis, Batman was the disguise, while recent writers go with Bruce as the disguise).

I assume Bruce's private persona is the real person---the persona that Alfred or other close friends would know. Batman to me is an act, along with Bruce-the-playboy (though think Bruce-the-corporate CEO/philanthropist is closer to his "real" self). Granted, I also think he should save the angst for being Bats, not for his closest friends/allies (unlike most of the current comic writers that assume he's psychotic).

[Human Shield]

Batman has said that he works towards a Gotham where Batman isn't needed. What would Bruce do if Batman wasn't needed? Would He start throwing batarangs at people who jaywalk or walk on the grass? Would be Bruce Wayne full time?

I never liked clumsy Clark, because it IS an act. He pretends to be clumsy, which means he doesn't care about his journalism job; he does it for fun, to keep a normal human perspective, and interact with people. Does he actually care about journalism? Would he be fine changing his name and job?

Does Clark actually like writing, does he have a desire to live normally like he would if he didn't have powers? If Superman didn't have powers he would not want to live as clumsy Clark. With S:TAS, you have a sense that Clark is doing what he would have wanted to do anyways. And Lois actually respected and liked Clark now, which in the Reeve movies Lois treated him like a dork until he revealed his identity in Superman II.

In S:TAS when it appeared that Clark died, Lois was broken up enough to want to believe he survived against all odds, and you get a sense she had feelings for him. If Clark in the Reeve movies had appeared to die, Lois would be sad but I don't think she would assume a leap of faith.

[maxnugget]

Nice essay, Style. I think you bring up a great poin -- the "X is the disguise, Y is who he really is" theory is too simplistic.

Both characters are somewhat fractured personalities, searching for a way to harness the many disparate aspects of who they are. In a way, we're all like this -- most of just don't have the luxury of channeling disparate elements of our personalities through masked vigilantes.

Bryan Singer said at the recent Comic-Con that Kal-El, the last son of Krypton, is Superman's true personality. This, like Style said, is just yet another attempt to find one personality that encompasses the truth of the character entirely, and such an effort will always be in vain because these characters have split their personalities up precisely because they couldn't find one identity to unify themselves under.

In some respects Superman, though clearly more psychologically "normal" than Batman, is the more messed up, identity-wise, of the two. Think about it. He spent his childhood and early teens growing up in Smallville as Ma and Pa Kent's son. Then, well into his early adult life, he finds out he's actually Kal-El and Jor-El's son, the last surviving member of the Kryptonian race, and not a member of the race of people he's thus far spent his life believing he belonged with. Add to this, he sees himself as having a responsibility to do "right" (as in, small-town, Kansas right, and, as a somewhat separate idea, protector and savior of Earth and lots of other planets in the universe, leader of the metahumans of the coming age of the superhero era). All of this would be near-impossible for anyone to balance. He basically finds out half-way through his young adult life that he's actually a completely different person than he thought he was. Rough.

In Bruce Wayne's case, it sort of depends who's version of the story you're looking at. BTAS/TNBA/BB had me sold on Bruce Wayne as the disguise, as did the Burton films. But then I watched Batman Begins, in which Bruce Wayne is very much a real person (excluding the put-on playboy element), and Batman is neither a persona nor a disguise, but more of a tool that the relatively-sane Bruce Wayne uses.

Of cousre, let's remember, the DCAU Bruce Wayne started off similar to the Batman Begins version, where there was a somewhat clear distinction that Wayne was real and reasonably-stable. It isn't until year-after-year of being Batman that the roles gradually reverse, until we eventually reach a point where it's par for the course to get things like that exchange in an episode of BB: (paraphrased)

Terry: "How did you know the voices in your head weren't you?"
Bruce: "Simple. Shriek kept calling me Bruce. In my head, I always call myself Batman."

It's probably a fair assumption that the Batman Begins version of the character would evolve into something similar to the DCAU version if he kept at it for decades and decades. After all, how do you keep yourself sane when you're spending half your time beating up thugs on rooftops and the other half living a lie, acting out an alibi, a farce, to convince everyone that you're not Batman. That doesn't leave much time, other than some time spent with Alfred, to be the REAL you, does it? (time spent chasing after escaped Arkham inmates doesn't count)

[reflection]

Best line in that series. Great thread.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Neat thread!

If you go back to basic principles, the romantic triangle involving two people but three personalities was a part of Superman from the Siegel and Shuster days. It's pretty evident that Lois thinks Superman is awesome and Clark is a loser, and S&S said as much in multiple interviews over the years. It is as central to the concept as Superman being the last son of Krypton. Considering that I think the triangle was established before the origin of Superman, one could even argue that it's MORE important.

The key bit, I think, is that the S&S portrayal never intended that split in identity to be a real one. It's a metaphor for the "if only you knew what I could REALLY do" feelings of people who perceive themselves to be downtrodden, neglected or undervalued. When someone dismisses you, thinking that you're incapable or incompetent, the thoughts that flash through your mind aren't really about different identities or aspects of your own personality as much as it's about how the other person doesn't understand who you truly are and what you're really capable of. I think this is one of the big reasons why Superman has resonated with so many people over the years, especially for the era he was created in and with children in particular.

It's also worthwhile to note that masks aren't just things that people put on themselves. Other people will put masks on you just as easily. You could be in a nice conversation with an elderly gentleman next to you on a plane for a half-hour, but once the cabin attendant calls him "Senator," the relationship between the two of you changes immediately and it's you who will be putting the mask on him. The mask of Clark is as much a creation of Lois and the people around Clark as it is something he created himself.

In contrast, Batman never seemed that invested in the dual-identity thing in his earlier stories. He was the next in line of masked vigilantes who used the effete lifestyle of a rich playboy to hide the secret life of adventure (the Scarlet Pimpernel and Zorro come to mind, and possibly the Green Hornet if he pre-dated Batman). I think the deep pseudo-psychological analysis, such as it is, came much much later in the process, but the split between Bruce and Batman was not really something that was as critical to the original concept as much as it was just another element of expediency lifted from the pulps that inspired him. He's more like Tarzan, the Lone Ranger, or the Phantom, in that there is a dual identity at work, but we don't come back for more adventures of Lord Greystoke, John Reid, or Kit Walker.

-- Ed/Ace

[Anthonynotes]

Batman has said that he works towards a Gotham where Batman isn't needed. What would Bruce do if Batman wasn't needed? Would He start throwing batarangs at people who jaywalk or walk on the grass? Would be Bruce Wayne full time?

I never liked clumsy Clark, because it IS an act. He pretends to be clumsy, which means he doesn't care about his journalism job; he does it for fun, to keep a normal human perspective, and interact with people. Does he actually care about journalism? Would he be fine changing his name and job?

Does Clark actually like writing, does he have a desire to live normally like he would if he didn't have powers? If Superman didn't have powers he would not want to live as clumsy Clark. With S:TAS, you have a sense that Clark is doing what he would have wanted to do anyways. And Lois actually respected and liked Clark now, which in the Reeve movies Lois treated him like a dork until he revealed his identity in Superman II.

In S:TAS when it appeared that Clark died, Lois was broken up enough to want to believe he survived against all odds, and you get a sense she had feelings for him. If Clark in the Reeve movies had appeared to die, Lois would be sad but I don't think she would assume a leap of faith.

Hmm... in the pre-Crisis comics (which put the emphasis on Clark as mostly a disguise and Superman or Kal-El as the "real" person), Clark apparently legitimately liked journalism---several Superboy stories have shown as such, with various internships, Clark fantasizing about his future, etc.; the earliest such story was probably a late 1940's story where he had a youth internship at the "Daily Planet" for a week, and met fellow intern and young teenager Lois Lane.

Granted, journalism also served (in various versions of the mythos) a practical purpose: Clark needs a job where he can easily find out breaking news about disasters, crimes, etc. as they happen (this element going back to the pre-Internet days, obviously), and also a job where he can't be tied down to a desk all day, which'd let him plausibly slip out and do his super-stuff easily without, say, filing some absence request form. Hence, journalism serves both a career interest and something practical for his super-duties.

Even if he was choosing a career based on its usefulness for a super-career anyway, there's no reason Clark couldn't choose something he enjoyed anyway----I'm sure being a pizza delivery driver with his car radio tuned to a local all-news station/police-band would've worked just as well, but I'm guessing it wouldn't have been as enjoyable... ;-)

[90'sCartoonMan]

All that said, in the show "Superman" seems to embody all the things that make Clark Clark, but "Clark" merely seems to be imitating Lois Lane.

Hee hee, you sound like a chicken, Style. But seriously, that was a well thought out post.

But in the S: TAS episode "The Late Mr. Kent" (which I consider to be the definitive exploration of the topic) it's clear that he sees himself as Clark Kent first, Superman second, and probably Kal-el is a distant third.

Yeah, "The Late Mr. Kent" was a great study into his identity. I'm not sure I'd say the DCAU Superman sees him as Clark first, but he sees himself as Clark more clearly. Superman is in the public eye, they write about him in the Planet, they insult him on the radio. Everyone has an opinion on Superman, but no one knows what it's like to be him (turn down that Five For Fighting, I'm trying to make a point here!). With all the varying opinions about him, Superman needs somewhere to retreat where it's just him. That's Clark Kent. The first "A" on his paper in high school is probably more important to him than the first meteor he stopped from hitting Earth. More important to humanity? No, more important to just one man. That's why he wanted the victory in TLMK to go to Clark and not Superman.

As for ol' pointy-ears...

The way I see it, the Batman is an expression of his rage, while the billionaire industrialist is an expression of his compassion (the most essential part if you ask me). The playboy image I suppose is the closest thing he has to a real disguise, which serves double duty as encouraging people to dismiss him as a layabout useless member of society (certainly not vigilante material) and allowing him to do some real good without the mask and attracting too much attention.

I agree with that. Bruce Wayne is a dumping ground for all the things Batman won't allow himself to do. The number one thing on that list is feel compassion and show mercy. It'd ruin Batman's image if he did that. That's why in "Old Wounds", Batman may have terrified the guy and his family, but Bruce Wayne gave him a job and checks in on him. When he's Bruce he can laugh and maybe even have a little bit of fun. Part of him wants to do it every once in a while, I'm sure. Being Batman all the time is a strain on him, and he needs a release. The way Bruce Wayne acts in public is just an exaggerated caricature of the feelings Batman doesn't give himself (in "Robin's Reckoning", the real Bruce wanted to see the circus, the publice Bruce spilled the popcorn and his drink).

Batman is just as much a release for Bruce as Bruce is for Batman. Brainatra is right about us interpreting the characters based on our age. In a JLA story a few years back (I believe it was Mark Waid's), the Leaguers were separated from their secret identities. Bruce Wayne had this intense anger inside him he was never able to get out. When a punk vandalized his car, Bruce beat the crap out of him. He needs the persona of Batman as a (somewhat) healthy channel for his anger towards the criminal element that took his parents.