A New Film about Ida Craddock: An Interview with the Director
A new docu-drama about reproductive freedom and women’s rights, Sex Radical chronicles the life of Ida Craddock (1857-1902), a feminist, spiritualist, and sex educator. Craddock frequently ran afoul of the Comstock Act – and Anthony Comstock himself – starting with her bellydancing act at the 1893 World’s Fair and ending with a 1902 conviction shortly before her death.
I recently had the opportunity to interview the film’s director, Andy Kirschner, to get a glimpse into the making and importance of the film.
The film will be available only for free screening between October 31 and November 4. To find out more, visit the film’s website.
How did you first learn about Ida Craddock? Why did you want to make a movie about her?
I just happened to hear a radio interview with the historian, Leigh Eric Schmidt, who wrote a biography of Ida Craddock. This was in about 2008 or 2009. I picked up the book, and her story really moved me. And there were also so many great details to her story: the fact that her first confrontation with Comstock was over a belly-dance at the World’s Fair, that she had a “spirit husband,” that she was a scholar of “phallic antiquities.” But ultimately what interested me most about the story were the striking similarities between the “culture wars” of the 1890’s and the “culture wars” of today: battles over sexuality, gender, free expression, the separation of Church and State. I found it remarkable that America had been having many of the same arguments for 150 years, and that Comstock said things like “Liberals are the heralds of Satan.” So familiar!
You set out to make a documentary-drama about Craddock. Why did you choose that form to tell her story?
Believe it or not, I originally thought it would make a great musical, or maybe an opera. My background is in music and experimental theatre, and at the time I first heard Craddock’s story, I hadn’t yet made a feature film. But after exploring the musical idea for a while, I kind of reached a dead end. I put the project aside for many years, and made my first two feature films. The second one, 10 Questions for Henry Ford, was also a documentary-drama, and I found that using that form enabled me to lay out the historical background and social context of the story while still retaining the emotional core of the drama. The film could be an emotional and an analytical/reflective experience at the same time. That’s always what I’m after.
Anthony Comstock is a familiar figure to anyone who studies US history. What was it like casting him? What part of his story were you hoping to portray?
Well, he has such a signature look. The mutton-chop side-whiskers, the ill-fitting suit revealing his paunch, the scar on his face. He really is a kind of opera buffa character – to go back to the musical idea. In some ways he was ridiculous and laughable, but he was also cruel. He damaged so many people’s lives through his monomaniacal pursuit of “obscenity.” Like so many Christian Nationalists today, he thought himself to be a “soldier of the Cross,” someone on a holy mission that justified just about any kind of violence, cruelty, or dishonesty. So on the one hand, I needed someone who physically resembled Comstock, someone who had a big booming voice and could take up a lot of space – someone who could be both ridiculous and dangerous. Joey Albright does a terrific job of playing him in the film, and our hair and makeup artist, Linda Long, found a way to work the requisite side-whiskers. Emily Sutton-Smith, who plays Ida Craddock, and Joey, who plays Comstock, were already friends after previously playing husband and wife. So, I think that brought an intimacy to their interaction in the film that made it all the more engaging to watch. Comstock’s pursuit of Craddock was very personal – it wasn’t just one more arrest for him. He had a score to settle.
Did you begin the process of making this film before the Dobbs decision in 2022? (I would assume so!) How has your relationship to the film, and to Craddock’s story, changed?
Yes, I did start it before Dobbs. And I was very deep into work on the screenplay when the decision came down. It didn’t really change what I wrote (since the film is based on Ida’s actual words), but I did start to think more about the “bodily autonomy” aspects of Craddock’s writing and advocacy. Of course, bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom are woven all through Craddock’s writing about women’s sexuality, but not necessarily as explicitly as it is in the writing of some of her contemporaries. That was one of the reasons that I ultimately added Emma Goldman as the narrator of the film, so those themes could be drawn out a bit more.
Having said that, I never dreamed that the actual Comstock Law from 1873 would be revived in 2025! But as you know, since Dobbs, anti-abortion activists have been calling for renewed enforcement of the abortion-related sections of the law. And there are several lawsuits coming out of places like Texas and Missouri that are ultimately aimed at getting the Comstock Law affirmed by the Supreme Court. They want to use it to ban medication abortion and invalidate shield laws. That would be a convenient way to enact a national ban, without Trump or Congress having to take political heat for enacting a new law. It’s astonishing, and also very sneaky and dishonest. I’m hoping discussion around the film can make people more aware of what’s currently going on around Comstock. Outside of historians and reproductive rights activists, most of the people I talk to have no idea about the Comstock Act and the potential danger it still poses to reproductive freedom.
Do you have a favorite anecdote about Craddock, maybe a factoid that didn’t make it into the final film?
She had such an interesting intellectual and spiritual life. I ended up downplaying some of the more imaginative aspects of her spiritual life, because I didn’t want those to become the focus of the film. But it did pain me to have to cut her monologue about her nightly prayers to “the penis of God” while she was running the Church of Yoga in Chicago.
Do you have any advice to historians out there interested in drawing attention to an important, but very little known, figure?
Well, this is obvious but the first thing I would say is to “tell a good story.” What got me interested in Ida Craddock was Leigh Schmidt’s fantastic writing and storytelling. I subsequently read many, many academic articles about Comstock, and the “sex radicals” of the 19th-century. The evolution of ideas about gender and sexuality in the Gilded Age very much informed the film. But I never would have latched onto the subject in the first place had I not read Leigh’s book. Of course, we all address different audiences at different times for different purposes, but to attract a lay audience, it’s got to be a good yarn. In approaching journalists to write about a book or a film, I’ve found that it is always helpful to frame the story in relation to the present. Journalists, generally speaking, are focussed on what is new, what is current – not so much on the past in isolation. People are generally more interested if you can explain how history helps us understand the present.
How can our readers learn more about the film? Where and when can it be viewed?
We’re having our theatrical premiere here in Ann Arbor on October 30. However, after that, the film can be streamed for free, worldwide, for five-days between October 31 and November 4 at bit.ly/sexradicalstream. People who want to see the film can register now at that website, and they will be notified when the film goes live. The movie will also be screening at the St. Louis International Film Festival on November 13, where I’ll have a post-screening discussion with Ida Craddock’s biographer, Leigh Schmidt. That event is being co-sponsored by the Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University St. Louis.
Featured image caption: Ida Craddock (Emily Sutton-Smith) is arrested for her “indecent” publications in the film Sex Radical. (Photo by Andy Kirshner; courtesy New History Films)
Chelsea Gibson studies gender and violence both in the United States and the Russian Empire. She holds a PhD in History from Binghamton University, where she is currently a Lecturer. She also devotes time to public history projects, and has served on the board of a non-profit museum for the last four years.
Discover more from Nursing Clio
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
