AP: So how often were you filming her?
SS: On and off. There would be times when I would go with her to Charleville, France, and I would just spend like a week with her and film. Very casually -- sometimes I didn't even take my camera. Go off on another trip here or there, when she's going to meet her mom and dad. She'd say, do you want to come to meet my mom and dad? Sometimes we wouldn't do anything for a month or two. 'Cause she's really busy, I'm busy. And I was in no hurry to do anything. I just wanted to do the document on the right occasions. If she was doing something artistic, I would go because I was doing some artistic things, too, with her through the camera. Experimenting or shooting film differently. That's why the film looks the way it does. It's all shot on 16mm, one camera, and what film I had.
AP: I was going to say, obviously Patti is a photographer herself and has a very photographic sensibility. I wondered if that factored into her understanding of how you were thinking about the film or how the film came about.
SS: Maybe. She started shooting Polaroids a lot . . . I didn't know of her doing that before. She's dabbled in film lately, for the Cartier Foundation. And she has a total new respect for what I did now. Because it's not easy. Especially on the fly. It's like, you never know what you're getting into. Sometimes she would be doing some really great things but it was so dark in the room. And I'm not turning on lights; I'm just sort of like, no, it's too dark, oh well. So I would happen to have my sound recorder and then I'd get great sound and no visual. Or a lot of times I'd get great visual and I just didn't have any sound. So that's how the movie became so different. Because I had to work with what I had. But I'm sure we influenced each other. And that's why I kept doing it, because she inspired me. She says I inspire her. So I think we work really well together.
AP: It's obviously a really collaborative film, and I wondered if you guys consciously talked about what the film would be like.
SS: No she had total trust in me and what I did. Because in a way we think a lot alike. She knows it's my movie, and she was there supporting me in the venture. But when it came to bringing her in on some voice-overs and stuff. There were some ideas I had, and then she would do some improvising from that and adding her thing, which was the best. That's when it becomes the most humanistic.
AP: I thought there were a couple of really interesting moments when Patti sort of addresses her discomfort with being filmed. I wonder if that was something you were really aware of or renegotiating constantly.
SS: I was always very careful about what footage I used. And when I was filming it I was always making sure it was the best light in a situation. And I think that comes across with me being a photographer. I shoot stills, so I'm always conscious about the light. Once in a while she would be like, oh, I don't want you to use that. But then I would say, I think it's beautiful, I don't know what you're talking about. But overall she was really pleased with the movie. She's actually really proud of the movie, which makes me really happy. You know, when I won the award at Sundance for best cinematography, it was so cool because that's what I do, I'm a photographer and now people are awarding me for making my stills come alive in a way. And that's why I made the book of the film. When you look at the book, it's me; it's the same as if I was shooting stills.
AP: Tell me a little about the book.
SS: Through technology now, my 16mm went through a D.I. scan; they scan every frame of my film. So I have every frame of my film on hard drives. We up-resed them and we made them look really special and we made a book. And nobody's done that; Rizzoli's never done anything like this. And we've actually blown up a couple of these images, and they're gorgeous. And you're like, wow; there's an exhibition now. But with the book I added the installation Objects of Life, which is another thing I did with her objects; I photographed them with this large-format camera, and they're these incredibly large photographs. And we framed them as objects, and that's on its way to the Centre for Contemporary Photography in Melbourne. It's going to be there for a month and a half. And then I also put Patti's painting that she did in the movie, "Strange Messengers," she gave that to me. It's the largest painting she's ever done. That's in the show too. So you can actually experience these things in person and see large photographs, and then you can see them in the movie, and then you can walk away with a book that is kind of like and index of the film itself. For me, I like all media, I just never was just a fashion photographer. It was more like, I like everything. I don't like pigeonholing myself in one thing. I think now with websites and stuff like that you can do all kinds of stuff with technology. It's sort of limitless. When we did the premier in New York at the MoMA, [Patti] sang in the garden. After the movie you can talk about it with your friends and then all of a sudden there she is singing. So it's a nice thing that a lot of people don't really do, sadly.
AP: Tell me a little bit about your photography.
SS: I do everything. I'm still shooting fashion. I love experimenting with doing my own personal work, whether it's nudes or landscapes. I'm thinking about doing a couple other art books. And then looking forward to doing fiction films, which sounds exciting to me. And then bringing more fashion into film, like I did with DKNY. You know it's sort of like to mix the two. I like to shoot fashion and I shoot a lot of ad campaigns, because some of it might be really commercial but it's a way for me to push the envelope sometimes with somebody like Coach or something like that. But the reward for photographers is you get paid well. It's kind of crazy how much money you can make. But what I do is I put it right back into projects I love. And that was Patti and other installations and things like that.
AP: So more films on the horizon?
SS: Oh yeah, definitely. I want to do some fiction films. I don't consider Patti as a documentary. Because I really believe that sometimes you don't know if things are scripted in her film, and I love that idea of that play. But I'm interested in doing a modern-day silent film. Or create a whole soundtrack before I put any kind of visual story to it. Like sort of do things wrong, that's what I kind of love. There's a New York Times story that says we are reinventing the wheel. I thought that was kind of funny. I don't think we're trying to reinvent, I think I was just doing what I thought was interesting art. I don't refer that film to any movie I've ever seen. Somebody came up to me and said, do you know Bruce Webber, Chet Baker, did you ever see that? Your film's a lot like that. I said, no I haven't seen it. Nor have I ever seen Don't Look Back. But Angelo Corrao actually edited the Chet Baker film. And he worked on Reds. He's really cool and he really kept me from getting too abstract. But he was good at going there, too. He would show me something and I would be like, damn Angelo, what's going on? Because he'd find something that was a mistake but he'd make it cool.
AP: How did other people feel about being in the film, the band mates and Patti's kids?
SS: They love it. Lenny Kaye and Tony [Shanahan], they were at the MoMa, it was their second time because they saw it at Sundance the first time. They saw it again and brought their wives and they were like, it's better the second time. And that really made me happy. They were really, really into it. And Jackson, Patti's son, really loves the movie. He really, really loves the movie. I did an extra for DVD that's called "Jackson" and he's talking about his dad. They're so into it because it's so different; they just think it's so cool. And that means a lot to me. Because I was always worried; they never saw it. The first time they saw it was at Sundance.
AP: I was thinking, it's kind of like this really cool home video.
SS: Exactly, that's what it is. It's a humanistic film. There's no ugliness. It's just positive. And I just wanted to do something inspiring for people. Sort of inspire people so they can leave the theater thinking, oh, I gotta know more about Blake or Whitman, or I want to go research Patti. I didn't want to spell it out for people; I want people to think. I think these films now, they're just so flat-out with everything that at the end of it you know it all. That's so boring to me. Whereas this one has a life after. At Paris they're playing it at the Pantheon, which is the oldest theater in Paris. And Patti, back in the '70s, would go there and watch Godard films and stuff. Above the theater, connected to the theater, is a café that Catherine Deneuve owns and decorated. And it's playing there for a year every Saturday, and that's the kind of stuff that we love. It's so cool when people at these Q&As are like, this is my second time, this is my third time. I love the fact that they keep coming back. I asked this one guy once, it was his fourth time seeing it. I was like, dude, aren't you like tired of it? He goes, no, every time I see it, it's a different movie for me.
Anyway, here is the other half. I hope it's ok to post it in here...I just think they belong together. 
