Categories
Fun Stuff Metaphysical Connection

Metaphysical Connection: Pluto Retrograde

In astrology, Pluto is the god of the underworld. Pluto may have been demoted to a dwarf planet in astronomy in 2006, but it is still an astrological powerhouse. As one of the modern rulers of Scorpio, it symbolizes how we experience power, sex, death, renewal, rebirth, and hidden or subconscious forces. Pluto went retrograde on May 2nd and will stay retrograde until October 11th.

When a planet goes “retrograde,” or moves backward through the zodiac, it often brings challenges in the areas of our life that the planet represents. Communication planet Mercury creates misunderstandings and technology breakdowns when in retrograde, for example. But Pluto’s backward shift doesn’t make us confused — it makes us reflective.

Pluto is named after the Roman god of the underworld. Like its namesake, the planet Pluto rules over the shadow side of life. When it goes retrograde, it forces us to look at our own shadow side. Two of Pluto’s big themes are power and desire. With it in retrograde, now is a good time to take an honest look at how much we’re motivated by a need for recognition, money, and authority.

Pluto can stay in one sign of the zodiac for up to 21 years and retrogrades every year for anywhere from five to six months. In the last year, Pluto has been undergoing an era-defining shift in our cosmos from Capricorn to Aquarius. It represents a moment in time in which we also find ourselves somewhat straddling two worlds — the old and the new. Pluto in Capricorn is the old and Pluto in Aquarius is the new. We are dancing intimately with change. We are preparing for a new era, and Pluto retrograde is an integral part of the dance.

Some believe that in astrology, as you move further away from planet Earth into the outer planets, the frequencies of those outer planets are more subtle, more complex, and more mysterious. Pluto and its influence cannot be grasped with the mind. It represents the unseen, the mysterious, and the hidden aspects of ourselves and humanity. It represents the reserves within us that are not often journeyed to, including our shadows, darkness, and vulnerabilities.

Retrogrades in astrology represent “re” words, such as review, revise, reconsider, realign, revisit, etc. They are the one step backward to allow for the many steps forward. They are a sacred pause inviting us to look around, review who we are and the direction we are walking, integrate our past experiences, and bring closure to what is needing it.

This is all so that we can arrive present, centered, and aligned before continuing forward. Retrogrades remind us that, no matter how we try, life is not linear. Our journey is cyclic. We move sideways, upside-down, and every other direction in our outer and inner worlds.

Pluto represents the kind of cracking open that brings change down to the roots of who we are. Pluto journeys through our underworld, our psyche, our unconscious, our emotional body. Pluto excavates. It brings to light. Its retrograde shows us what is hidden within us and waiting for healing, acceptance, and closure.

Here, we are revisiting what is ready to be transformed. Throughout Pluto retrograde we may find what we have labeled “old” emotions, stories, or pain resurfacing. And while transformation is rarely easy, it is deeply nourishing.

This retrograde invites us to be vulnerable while it peels back layers to sit with what lies underneath. We are asked to witness parts ourselves we have disowned and cast into the shadow, all so that we may reach acceptance and reclaim ourselves. We are asked to sit with what has been keeping us chained, dimmed, powerless, and fearful, so that we may remember our freedom, power, and light.

Our role is that of surrender, presence, and grace, to allow our humanness to be as messy as it desires for this time. For we are quite literally taking a step back, picking apart the pieces, making a mess, and then placing them back together in a way that is aligned, empowering, freeing, and real, all in time for our forward movement. It’s time to close a chapter.

Emily Guenther is a co-owner of The Broom Closet metaphysical shop. She is a Memphis native, professional tarot reader, ordained Pagan clergy, and dog mom.

Categories
Film Features Film/TV

True Story

The crusading reporter character has a deep history in America. Superman, the very embodiment of the American ideal, chose a journalist, Clark Kent, as his alter ego. But even though we have the institution of the press enshrined in our founding documents, our portrayals of reporters reveal an ambivalent attitude toward the Fourth Estate. For every Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as Woodward and Bernstein uncovering the truth about Nixon’s corruption in All the President’s Men, we have a Kirk Douglas as the cynical Chuck Tatum, the self-serving tabloid writer who jazzes up a story by letting his subject slowly die in a dark cave in Billy Wilder’s Ace in the Hole.

Jonah Hill’s portrayal of real-life magazine writer Michael Finkel in True Story falls somewhere between those two extremes. When the film opens, Finkel is at the top of his game. He’s had 10 New York Times Magazine cover stories in three years, and he thinks his latest one about slavery in Africa might just earn him the Pulitzer he wants so badly. But there’s a problem: It seems he has conflated — or perhaps wholly invented — the lead subject in his story, and when his bosses at The Gray Lady find out, he gets the boot. But did Finkel punch up the story on purpose, or was it a mistake by a writer who was relying on translators and bribery to get a story in an unfamiliar land?

How you interpret the opening sequence of the film, based on a memoir by Finkel, will determine your attitude toward the meat of True Story‘s story. Hill is a sympathetic presence in the film, but his disgraced reporter character operates under a cloud of suspicion, both from colleagues and the audience. While he’s frantically pitching comeback stories from his cabin in Montana (The Times clearly pays more than Memphis journos are accustomed to), he gets a call from another reporter asking why a fugitive from justice in Mexico was claiming to be Michael Finkel when he was caught.

Finkel finds out the fugitive using his name is Christian Longo (James Franco), an Oregon man accused of killing his wife and three children. Now, Finkel’s got a killer story with a winning angle, and when he travels to Oregon to meet Longo in the flesh, it gets even better. Longo is an aspiring writer and fan of Finkel’s work who says he is innocent. But even though he writes novella-length letters to the reporter from his holding cell, he won’t reveal who the real killer is. With a charismatic, articulate white guy who is about to be wrongly convicted of murder as his protagonist, Finkel’s magazine story turns into a book deal with Harper Collins. But is Longo really, as he says, a “nice guy 99 percent of the time,” or a low-key Hannibal Lector?

Hill is playing against the type he created in comedic roles such as Superbad and 21 Jump Street. I was reminded of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre where Humphrey Bogart played a completely unsympathetic and unscrupulous character, but his onscreen charisma made him appear to be a hero. Even Finkle’s wife Jill (an underused Felicity Jones) expresses her doubts about his reporting skills, but he dives deep into the case, and we’re along for the ride as he vacillates between the conviction that Longo is innocent and that he should be convicted. Franco has more experience at playing charismatic sociopaths. His road to leading manhood took a deliciously devious turn as Alien, the archetypal Florida gangbanger in Harmony Korine’s Spring Breakers. Franco deftly walks the tightrope between soulful boy next door and cold-blooded murderer, and his finely tuned performance ultimately saves True Story from the turgid, CSI melodrama the source material suggests.

Director Rupert Goold has roots in the English theater, and he’s more interested in watching the sparks fly when he puts Hill and Franco together in a prison visiting room than he is in composing compelling images. True Story lacks the technical bravado of Gone Girl, but it’s a worthy addition to the true crime genre — even if it leaves viewers questioning the meaning of “true.”

Categories
Film Features Film/TV

Gone Girl

Gone Girl is based on a bestselling crime novel by Gillian Flynn, who also wrote the screenplay. With its byzantine plot, morally ambiguous characters, and obsession with peeling back layers of “reality,” it is the perfect material for director David Fincher. It is the stylistic and thematic cousin of Fincher’s masterpiece Zodiac, and may surpass the 2007 film in reputation. One of the few useful notes I took before surrendering to Fincher’s dark spell was: “Perfect frame after perfect frame.”

Gone Girl is currently teaching me how much of my weekly word count is taken up with summaries. The expertly executed whiplash plot has earned word of mouth that is the envy of Hollywood, and yet recounting it here would be useless. If you’ve read the book, you already know what happens. If you haven’t, you don’t want to know. Here’s the setup: On their fifth wedding anniversary, Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) comes home to find his wife Amy (former Bond girl Rosamund Pike) missing, apparently the victim of a kidnapping. In less than 48 hours, the case becomes a full-blown media circus. Then things get weird.

Gone Girl is about the media. It’s probably the best filmic critique of our industry’s effect on society since Natural Born Killers predicted the metastization of the 24-hour news cycle 20 years ago. It’s marketed as a mystery, but it’s closer to Billy Wilder’s Ace in the Hole or Sidney Lumet’s Network than a classic mystery like The Big Sleep. Once observed by the media’s electron microscope, the characters behave like a quantum particle forced into choosing a definite state. Is Nick a hero, villain, or victim? Like Schrodinger’s cat suspended between life and death, he exists as all three at once. In a memorable exchange near the end of the film, he confronts his greatest tormentor, talk-show shouter Ellen Abbot (Memphian Missi Pyle), with all of the lies and distortions she has spread about him. “I go where the story is,” she says, even if that means inventing details to support the most lucrative narrative.

Ben Affleck in Gone Girl

Gone Girl is not misogynistic. Nor is it misandristic. It is misanthropic. Its worldview is so cynical it makes Double Indemnity look like It’s a Wonderful Life. Everyone in the film stoops to their basest level, confirming their sexes’ worst stereotypes. Nick’s glibly charming exterior hides a lazy, emotionally distant philanderer. Amy’s perfect woman exterior hides untold depths of emotional manipulation and cold-blooded lies. As she says, “We’re so cute, I want to punch us.” If, as has been suggested, Fincher’s adaptation tips the moral scales toward the male, it’s because Affleck’s job description as a movie star is: “Be sympathetic on camera.” And Affleck is very good at his job.

Gone Girl is exquisitely well acted. Pike shows complete control over her instrument, shifting into whichever version of Amy the director needs her to be as the points of view change. Kim Dickens shines as Detective Rhonda Boney, the Marge Gunderson-like investigator who proves impotent in the face of overwhelming evil. Neil Patrick Harris manages to take his character Desi Collings from creepy to nice and back again with very limited screen time. But the best of the bunch may be Tyler Perry as the Johnnie Cochran-like defense attorney who cheerfully plots the character assassination of a missing woman who, for all he knows, could be rotting at the bottom of a lake.

Gone Girl is about class. It’s one of the most insightful movies made about the Great Recession, exposing films like Up in the Air as classist dreck. The fear of losing economic status permeates everything. The story’s real inciting incident isn’t Amy’s 2012 disappearance; it’s 2009, when the couple lose their media jobs and are forced to move from New York City to a Missouri McMansion, propped up by debt and illusion. In one telling moment, when one of the movie’s many middle-class Machiavellians finds themselves confronted with actual, desperate lower-class criminals, they are summarily beaten at their own game.

Gone Girl is circular. It’s an appropriate structure for a story where everyone is trapped, either by their sex, their class, their perceptions, or by a whole sick society whose death throes make missing white girls into a growth sector for cable conglomerates.

Gone Girl is a very good movie. You should go see it.

Categories
Cover Feature News

Mummy Mystery

Sweating furiously, the old man pried open the wooden crate and peered inside. Memphis attorney Finis Bates breathed a sigh of relief when he saw that the fragile contents were undamaged.

“John, my old friend,” he said. “You’re home at last!”

Lying inside was the mummified body of an elderly man Bates believed was John Wilkes Booth. How the corpse of Abraham Lincoln’s assassin came to rest in a Central Gardens garage remains one of the strangest episodes of our city’s past.

The Death of Lincoln

Most history books tell us this story: On the night of April 14, 1865, President Lincoln was murdered at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C., during a performance of Our American Cousin. John Wilkes Booth, a noted actor of the day, stole into the president’s box and fired a single shot from a derringer into the back of Lincoln’s head. As he jumped down to the stage, he caught his spur in a flag draping the balcony, snapping his ankle. Amid the confusion, Booth managed to escape out the back door of the theater, where a horse was held for him in the alley.

Lincoln died hours later. It was soon established that the terrible crime had been part of a conspiracy, and an intense manhunt began. In a matter of days Booth’s fellow criminals were caught, but the assassin himself and a companion named David Herold had disappeared.

Not for long. Hobbled by his injured leg, Booth was unable to get far. On April 26th, federal troops cornered the two men in a barn near Fredericksburg, Virginia. When Booth and Herold refused to surrender, the barn was set afire. Herold dashed out and was nabbed immediately, but Booth remained inside. Silhouetted against the flames, he was shot in the neck by a soldier firing (against orders) through a crack in the wall.

The Mystery Begins

Booth was dragged from the barn and died within minutes. His body was carried to Washington, D.C., where it was quickly buried in a secret location at the federal penitentiary. Skeptics have always wondered why no autopsy was performed, why no family members or close friends were permitted to view the body, and — oddest of all — why the appearance of the corpse was so unlike that of John Wilkes Booth.

Perhaps the Army realized that Booth had escaped after all.

Accounts of Booth mention his curly black hair, yet two citizens who saw the body at the farm described it as red-haired. According to some reports, Herold surprised his captors by asking them, “Who was that man in the barn with me? He told me his name was Boyd.” And even though hundreds of people in Washington knew Booth well, no close friends were called to identify the remains. Instead, the Army relied on a few military men who had seen Booth on stage, along with the proprietor of a Washington hotel where Booth had lodged.

As recounted in a 1944 issue of Harper’s, the strangest testimony came from Booth’s personal physician, who had once operated on Booth’s neck. When this man examined the body, he was stunned: “My surprise was so great that I at once said to [the surgeon general], ‘There is no resemblance in that corpse to Booth, nor can I believe it to be that of him.'”

That didn’t faze the surgeon general, who persuaded the doctor that a scar on the corpse’s neck was the result of the earlier operation. When the body was set upright, the doctor reluctantly admitted, “I was finally enabled to imperfectly recognize the features of Booth.” He was not entirely convinced, however: “But never in a human being had a greater change taken place.”

Stories like these fueled rumors that John Wilkes Booth remained alive. His niece claimed that Booth had secretly met with her mother a year after the assassination and had lived on for another 37 years. A Maryland justice of the peace reported he ran into Booth in the 1870s.

Many of these reports are surely preposterous. But one story cannot be dismissed so lightly. In 1872, a young lawyer who would later serve as assistant district attorney for Shelby County encountered a remarkable fellow in Texas. The lawyer’s name was Finis Langdon Bates. The strange man called himself John St. Helen.

A Curious Client

Bates was born in 1851 in Mississippi. He studied law in Carrollton and then moved to Granbury, Texas, to begin his legal career. He had been there a short time when he was approached by St. Helen about a liquor license.

St. Helen, it seems, had wandered into town a few years before and professed to be a storekeeper, but his ignorance of such trade essentials as liquor licenses led him to Bates. Bates found St. Helen “indescribably handsome” and noted that his poise, dress, and education set him apart from the uncouth characters who inhabited the region. While others bellowed out bawdy songs in the tavern, St. Helen recited from Macbeth and discoursed for hours on Roman history. Whenever a play came to town he was sure to see every performance and befriend the actors.

There was a dark side to St. Helen, Bates noted. His client “acquired a restless and hunted, worried expression constantly on his face.”

Months passed. One day, thinking he was dying, St. Helen summoned Bates and made an astonishing confession: He was Edwin Booth’s brother, John Wilkes Booth. He had, in fact, escaped from the Virginia farm just hours before the Army arrived there.

In a lengthy revelation which Bates transcribed, St. Helen — or Booth — described in detail the murder of Lincoln and his getaway, an escape made possible by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Booth wanted this information made known, because, “I owe it to myself, most of all to my mother … to make and leave behind me for history a full statement of the horrible affair.”

William Vandivert/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images

Bates admitted, “This story I could not accept as fact without investigation.” And so he began his research into the Lincoln assassination that would last the rest of his life. He discovered that the story checked out, even insignificant details, such as St. Helen claiming he had lost his field glasses at the farm. The official records, which had not been made public, confirmed that Booth’s field glasses had been found in the yard.

Bates wrote to Army officials, urging them to reopen the case, but received a terse reply: The killer of Abraham Lincoln had been shot by the U.S. Army, and the case was closed.

In the meantime, the mysterious storekeeper named John St. Helen recovered from his illness, left town one day — and never returned.

Several years later, Bates also left Texas and came to Memphis, where he established a law practice and a widespread reputation as a land title attorney. But his real interest was the Booth/St. Helen controversy, and he refused to let it die. He maintained a lengthy correspondence with anyone who may have encountered John Wilkes Booth or John St. Helen.

Twenty-five years passed, but Bates never gave up his quest. Then, in 1903, a house painter calling himself David E. George committed suicide in the small town of Enid, Oklahoma.

Correcting History

George was a friendless old man, without the slightest talent for painting houses. He preferred to sit in his boarding house and read theatrical journals. Often drunk, he would quote Shakespeare and once lamented to his landlady, “I’m not an ordinary painter. You don’t know who I am. I killed the best man that ever lived.”

One night, George went up to his dreary room and swallowed a massive dose of poison. Such a death would have rated a few lines on the obituary page of the Enid paper, but for one element. On his deathbed, George confessed to the minister that he was John Wilkes Booth.

The minister told the local undertaker, who remembered: “I took special pains with the body after that. If it was Booth’s body, I wanted to preserve it for the Washington officials when they came.” The undertaker did his job well and actually mummified the body with arsenic.

The Washington officials never came, but Finis Bates did. Newspapers had carried the strange tale of David George as far as Memphis, and Bates hoped this was the missing link he had long needed. When he finally arrived in Enid, he gazed upon the dead man’s face and cried out, “My old friend! My old friend John St. Helen!” His 25-year search was over.

No one in Enid wanted responsibility for disposing of the body of John Wilkes Booth, so the town leaders waited doggedly for the “Washington officials” to come. Eight years passed, and the mummy, displayed in a furniture store, became something to show visitors.

Finally, since Bates had at one time been appointed the dead man’s attorney (back when he called himself John St. Helen), he was allowed to claim his client’s body. He took the mummy home with him to Memphis, where he carefully stored it in a crate in his garage at 1234 Harbert.

Then Bates decided to tell the world of his discovery. In 1907, he published The Escape and Suicide of John Wilkes Booth, or The First True Account of Lincoln’s Assassination, Containing a Complete Confession by Booth Many Years After His Crime. (Copies of Bates’ book are still available at the Benjamin Hooks Central Library and at the U of M’s Ned R. McWherter Library.) In his preface, the author summed up his life’s work: “In preparation of this book I have neither spared time nor money … and present this volume of collated facts, which I submit for the correction of history.”

In more than 300 pages, Bates presented his evidence, recounting with considerable (perhaps unbelievable) detail the confessions he had heard from Booth/St. Helen more than 30 years previously. He also included testimonials from some of Booth’s former friends and associates who had come to Memphis and examined the mummy.

The book reveals a man desperately trying to make people believe him: “It is to the American people that I appeal,” he wrote, “that they shall hear the unalterable facts, that the death of America’s martyred president was not avenged, as we have been persuaded to believe.”

Government officials remained skeptical, and Bates died in 1923 without seeing his dream of “correcting history” fulfilled. However, enough of his argument rang true for others to consider it, and interest in the case built slowly. Harper’s devoted 17 pages to Bates’ claim in its November 1924 issue, and then the Literary Digest (December 25, 1926) picked up the story, followed by Life magazine (July 11, 1938) and other publications.

The Mummy in the Garage

It made good reading, all right, but the “Washington officials” never came to Harbert for the assassin’s body, and the mummy remained in Bates’ garage.

Experts who examined the body found a shriveled old man with long white hair and dried skin like parchment. There was indeed a similarity between this creature and John Wilkes Booth, and scars that Booth carried matched vague marks on the mummy. The left leg was shorter, as if it had once been broken, and the mummy’s right thumb was deformed. (Booth had crushed his thumb in a stage curtain gear.) The size of the mummy’s foot matched a boot left behind by Booth during his flight. And Chicago doctors who X-rayed the body in 1931 discovered a corroded signet ring in the mummy’s stomach — with the initial “B.”

The Booth mummy remained on Harbert for 20 years before Bates’ widow sold it to a carnival for $1,000. In the 1930s the mummy was a major attraction at Jay Gould’s Million Dollar Spectacle, a carnival traveling the Midwest. Twenty-five cents admission enabled people to inspect the grisly relic, which was dressed in khaki shorts and laid out on an Indian blanket. Ten thousand dollars was promised to anyone who could prove the mummy not genuine — that’s what the signs said anyway — but there were no takers. One rather gruesome feature had been added over the years: A large flap had been cut into the mummy’s back, and customers really wanting their quarter’s worth could peer inside. No one disputed that it was a real human mummy; the mystery remained whether it was John Wilkes Booth.

Despite the publicity — or perhaps because of it — serious scholars and historians scoffed. One Lincoln authority who examined the corpse concluded, “The body of the suicide from Enid, Oklahoma, presents some similarities to that of Booth, but lacks other identifying features.”

The author of the 1924 Harper’s article, who personally examined the mummy in Memphis, wondered, “Could this long gray hair, still curling and plenteous, have been the adornment of that young man who mastered the stage of his day with his talent and physical beauty?” Some 17 pages later, he decided that it simply could not be: “No mystery remains in my mind about the end of John Wilkes Booth. The evidence against the Enid legend is simply overwhelming.” As if he still weren’t entirely certain, though, he concluded, “But what a strange story it is!”

Bates did, however, attract the attention of at least one authority who knew something about remarkable escapes. After the death of Harry Houdini in 1926, his personal library was found to contain dozens of copies of Bates’ book.

The Missing Mummy

Finis Bates died a disappointed man, and his life’s work was reduced to one sentence in The Commercial Appeal obituary, only noting that he “had devoted years in obtaining proofs and affidavits of the escape and suicide of John Wilkes Booth.” The Bates home and garage on Harbert, the mummy’s last resting place in Memphis, have been torn down and replaced by an apartment house. And the mummy itself?

In the late 1950s, the Circus World Museum tried to buy “John,” and a few years after that the townspeople of Enid, Oklahoma, expressed interest in getting “their” mummy back as a tourist attraction. More recently, the Regional Forensic Center in Memphis and even the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., expressed interest in examining the mummy. With their sophisticated equipment, scientists could analyze physical characteristics of Booth to determine if they matched the mummy.

There was just one problem: No one knows where it is. Last seen at a carnival in the Midwest in the mid-1970s, the body of David George, or John St. Helen, or John Wilkes Booth — or perhaps all three if you believe the strange tale told by Finis Bates — has vanished.

A version of this story originally appeared in Memphis magazine.