Superman disguises himself as Clark Kent. Right? It says it right
there in the opening of the George Reeves TV series. "Disguised as
Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great Metropolitan
newspaper." Kent is the mask, and Superman is the identity.
Or is he?
With Batman, this is certainly the case. Bruce Wayne is an elaborate
charade designed to disguise Batman-- the creature born out of a
child's anger over his dead parents. Grant Morrison, for one,
subscribes to this view, which is why his JLA run virtually never
shows Batman out of costume. "Costume" isn't even an appropriate term
in this case-- it's Wayne who is the costume; Batman is Batman 24
hours a day, regardless of what he's wearing.
Things aren't like that with Superman. He has incredible powers, but
at heart he's a Kansas farmboy. Lois Lane, who knows him best, still
calls him "Smallville." That's who he really is: a shy, nice guy-- you
could even say "mild-mannered"-- who still calls his mother on the
phone every night (when he's not flying back home to help her make
dinner). We see this most clearly in the relationship between Clark
and Lois in the first two Superman movies. Lois falls for Superman
instantly, but he doesn't immediately reciprocate, even though we know
he's interested. No, before he lets her into his heart she needs to
accept not Superman, but Clark. Superman is a tough facade protecting
the fragile kid from Kansas, a guy who's never been able to fit in.
In Superman's brief appearances in Alan Moore's Swamp Thing, it's this
not-fitting-in that's emphasized. Superman is a lonely god, unable to
connect with the inhabitants of the planet he protects because he is
too far above them. He can count the atoms in our atmosphere-- we can
never understand a being that possesses that kind of power, and he can
never be one of us. It's an intriguing interpretation of the
character, and it's probably one of my favorite bits from his entire
run on Swamp Thing-- but it's wrong. Superman's abilities do set him
apart from humanity, but that hasn't made him into the distant alien
that Moore presents. Instead, Clark makes active attempts to make
himself more human, kind of like Data on Star Trek: The Next
Generation. And, like Data, it's the quest that completes his
humanity. Clark Kent is set apart from humanity, but that results not
in distance but emotional vulnerability-- which is his most human
characteristic.
I can't talk about Superman without talking about incarnational
theology-- that's just the kind of geek I am. Alan Moore's idea of
Superman is a gnostic one. In gnostic Christian writings, Jesus is all
God, and not human at all, to the extent that he doesn't even have a
physical body. He is so far above us that he is purely spiritual,
without any physical aspect. The strains of Christianity that became
dominant argued against these gnostic ideas by emphasizing that Jesus
was "wholly God and wholly man," that his divine aspect does not
eclipse his humanity. Jesus may have had amazing abilities, but at
heart he was just a kid from a small town who loved his mom. Just like
Clark Kent.
Thank you so much, Gabriel, for contributing. You can read more of Gabriel's thoughts at his genuinely fascinating blogs (which i've pouring over lately); Sci-Fi Gospel and Holy Heroes.
6 comments:
I like this idea. Even though it is totally at odds with my favourite characterization of Superman, the one put forward by the character Bill from Kill Bill, Volume 2.
But then, I do believe that Bill's monologue about the true nature of Clark Kent/Superman was more about fully illustrating Bill's own nature, rather than any real discussion about Clark. Bill sees himself as a predator, a natural born killer, and outside the society upon which he preys. As such, he would more closely identify with other outsiders, going so far as to project this outsider philosophy upon those he wishes were also outsiders.
Oddly enough, I thought the notion that Clark pretends to be Superman, not the other way around was best articulated in an episode of Lois & Clark, where Clark says precisely this - that Superman is just a costume, not who he is.
Ultimately, this is the fundamental question of Superman's existence. He was born Superman, but raised as Clark Kent (probably best to leave out Kal-El: it'll only confuse matters).
He wants to be Clark, a human, but the best stories question whether that's really his destiny.
The best stories have suggested that, without boundaries, he could one day slip into his role. Frankly, if this happens, if he truly becomes the Nietzschean ideal, then Lex Luthor is right: nothing could stop him from deciding he's above human law and morality and dispensing whatever justice or vengeance he sees fit.
Kingdom Come brought him to this line and showed how he fought his way back. There was an alternate reality in the Justice League animated series that showed a version who was beyond redemption.
At his best, it's unclear which identity is real.
Also, not to be argumentative... no, really it is to be argumentative... I'm taking issue with the whole Bruce Wayne/Batman thing.
As far as I can tell, the whole "Bruce Wayne is a disguise" dates back to a story Denny O'Neil was writing in the 70's. Before then, if Bruce Wayne was at a party and thugs showed up, Wayne would take charge and start fighting.
O'Neil realized this didn't make a lot of sense: if everyone saw the rich guy with a troubled past fighting like Batman, it killed the illusion.
So he went back to Batman's roots and discovered that Wayne used to act like an idiot when cops were around. He brought this back with a vengeance. After ostracizing himself from his friends (particularly Gordon), Batman started to become afraid that Wayne was becoming the mask rather than Batman.
It was a concern, though, not a battle cry.
Of course, that changed as comics became darker. Batman became the center piece of the DCU, and Wayne became a disguise he threw on. And a lot of us (me included), got on board.
But, now that there's been some time to reflect, I don't think it's really accurate. The Dark Knight who leaps from rooftops to terrify criminals into surrendering is no more the true persona than the playboy who appears to be daydreaming in board meetings: these are both acts.
The real Batman - or Bruce Wayne, it doesn't matter what his name is - is the guy hanging out in the Batcave with Dick Grayson or having a cup of coffee with Clark Kent. It doesn't matter what suit he's wearing: he's himself around Alfred; not the Joker.
Most recent interpretations have done an amalgamated Batman. Well, they did before Batman died.
You're in good company -- Orson Scott Card had this to say in a couple of reviews on his website:
"Instead of the nerdy Clark Kent we got from Christopher Reeve, played for laughs, [Tom] Welling's Clark Kent in Smallville is not a disguise. He's the *real* person, and "Superman" is a role he's only beginning to discover -- sometimes with delight, and sometimes with regret, even anger."
- www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2004-05-09.shtml
"The trouble is that Richard Donner's Superman was practically a cartoon. Reeve actually had to fight against the rest of the cast to make Superman believable at all; with Clark Kent, Reeve surrendered and made him a buffoon. ... This is the opposite approach to that taken by the brilliant TV series Smallville, in which we think of the character of Clark Kent as the "real" guy, and the Superman identity as something forced on him by fate."
- www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2006-07-02.shtml
Apropos of nothing, I also like this quote from Catholic movie critic Steven D. Greydanus:
"Superman was born great, and Spider-Man had greatness thrust upon him, but Batman achieved greatness."
- www.decentfilms.com/sections/reviews/batmanbegins.html
Hiya Gabriel. Nice crossover! Next you and Thomas should team up to defeat Luthor and the Joker!
Does your idea about Moore's gnostic (or docetic?) Superman apply to "Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow" as well? To get the normal, human life with Lois, Kent has to give up Superman, which would fit with that either-divine-or-human-but-not-both framework, I guess.
"Gnostic Christian writings"? How about just Gnostic writings. In Gnosticism, there was nothing Christian about them. You've been duped by modern popular "scholarship" like Bart Ehrman and/or the Jesus Seminars. No offense, but Gnosticism crept up in the second century and beyond, not during Jesus' ministry or short after. The Gnostic gospels aren't 1st century. They're 2nd and after.
Joel
Post a Comment