The only thing he's sensationalizing is his voice. And that too for the purposes of disguise and intimidation, which is very much required considering what he does. Otherwise, there is nothing else really that you can point at to show Bale's Bruce isn't free and comfortable with himself in the suit.
I didn't exactly say he wasn't free and comfortable in some form. I said he wasn't at his
most truest to
self when under that mask. His entire bat persona is created as a means of evoking a certain reaction from the people he's around. As I said: projecting. It is
inherently a form of deceit.
His inner-burden at the time was that he was completely lost and just didn't know how to do what he really set out to accomplish. He was angry and frustrated and that was manifested through his aggressive behavior. When he came back to Gotham he was more at peace with himself because he finally knew exactly what he had to do. But aggression can also be a permanent trait of one's personality rather than just a mere circumstantial outburst. It's what I meant by Batman being the dark side of Bruce's psyche. It's an extension of all his rage and destructive impulses. But is by no means what the Bruce Wayne character is all about.
You cannot be consciously at peace, and aggressively out-of-control at the same time. That is, if we're to assume that Bruce
isn't crazy. That crazy, macho stunt he pulls is an act. The Flass interrogation, for example. It works great there.
I suppose he was semi-honest when he started beating on Joker. But the mere fact that he still maintains his bat-persona, which is a complete fabrication in and of itself, tells me he was still aware of what he's embodying. Chock up another con for me as a result of this interpretation. Batman can never truly be "out of control" if he's consciously exerting that bat-voice and gruff exterior. It comes off as silly to keep the charade going when there's some potential personal moments at hand. Be it emotionally charged up, or drained (see my sig).
I have yet to see any interview or quotes in which either Nolan or Bale said that Bale's Batman is just mere pretending. Can you please show me exactly when, what and where they said this, because it is possible that you simply might have misinterpreted their meaning.
You've
never heard either of them use the term "create" in reference to Bruce and Batman? I'll look if you insist, but I'm pretty sure this was common knowledge by now. The very fact that Batman is an entirely different character from Bruce in the first place, entails some form of pretending/projecting/sensationalizing. Yes or no?
I don't see why you think a person has to be crazy or at the brink of insanity to have a darker side to his personality. Bruce is a person who has gone through a terrible tragedy at a very young age. You honestly think that such a person, who though outwardly appearing to be quite calm and controlled, is exactly normal by all accounts? Just because we subconsciously deny acknowledging our darker impulses due to personal inhibitions or social restraints does not mean they are not there or that we are not capable of them. You can clearly see it in the interrogation scene in which Batman goes berserk that he is not pretending. Instead of keeping his wits about him like Gordon, Batman completely loses control and is at his most vulnerable. It's about as honest as it gets.
Look up just a few paragraphs, I've addressed this. "Out of control" is self-explanatory. I realize many reference this scene as an example of that. But if you figure in how in-control you have to be to sustain the Batman character in the way Bale has...then I'm sure it's quite easy to see how that can be argued.
Yes, but the likelihood of diffusion is increased when the persona in control isn't the dominant one, thereby reducing its impact. It's like someone who you know to be rather erratic and unusual. Seeing negative behavioral changes in such an individual is neither surprising nor dramatic since you believed them to be half-crazy anyway.
Again, the dominant side does not matter because no one else but the individual themselves truly knows which side is "truest". The sudden 180 from any emotional equilibrium is what upsets the balance, so to speak. Whether it be calm --> crazy, or crazy --> calm. Whichever one your peers knows more, a shift to a different extreme is just as jarring.
You have yourself admitted that what I said about Bruce being different as Batman is correct. If so, wouldn't that also imply that the aggressive, intimidating, cold and detached figure that is Batman is who Bruce really is? That all his love, care and compassion for his friends and family is merely his dark side restrained rather than his true self?
No. It's the entire "scary monster" act he pulls that prevents me from seriously considering it's his true self. As I've said, the voice alone takes considerable effort and focus to maintain. If he were truly being released of his constraints, he wouldn't be
forcing anything.
No, Alfred was right. He didn't say Bruce was crazy or insane for his impulsive behavior. He was rebuking Bruce was acting selfishly when he should been responsible and exercised a bit more caution. Sure, he was trying to save a life, but his recklessness could have endangered others. That's why he says "well we both care for Rachel, sir, but what you are doing has to be beyond that, it can't be personal".
Reckless, yes. Selfish, no. Under the circumstances it was understandable what he had done. Given this was Batman's rookie year, even more apparent that he has a lot to learn.
Alfred's line about Bruce getting lost inside his monster was meant to highlight that Alfred knew that Bruce becomes more violent and aggressive whenever he puts on the cape and cowl and that he should always consciously keep his aggression under control instead of letting it cloud his judgment.
Rachel was
dying. That line would have been more prudent if somehow Alfred knew what Bruce did to Joker in the interrogation room. But not in this case. A loved one was about to die, and time was of the essence. That is simply not grounds for rebuking.