A proposal for a formal approach - I

As I work my way through the edit of Reconcilation, coming to see the strengths and weaknesses, and worst of all the missed opportunities, I have begun to think of how I might approach Tidal Barrier/Claire.
I think I have already said so long ago that I have subscribed to Tarkovsky's ideal, to build each shot on the shoulders of the last. This implies that each scene or moment or has its ideal shot/ position/angle and the film making process is the struggle to discover it.
This also implies an abandonment of continuity editing, conventional establishing shot to close-up, to reverse close-up, to two-shot, back to the establishing shot. Instead of moving forward continuity editing moves in a circle. Instead of the pure film making pursuit of finding the shot, and then the next, it serves the demands of staging of a scene, which is something Tarkovsky believes was stolen from the theatre, and has no place in film.
Could I have achieved this in Reconciliation? I have already said that I have failed at points in that film (described below), where I have found myself, I feel, going in a circle instead of going forward. But then in the feedback the other night, JC (my cinematographer) suggested an idea that would solve the problem, or could have if we had the footage. I have spent this Sunday deciding if I shoot a pickup.
So, yes, is the short answer.
The best part of rejecting staging and continuity editing? I can already see a place for it in Tidal Barrier/Claire, at the point when her life goes into reverse. Can you imagine the power of the wide shot, then close-up if you have not seen a close-up for 25 minutes?

Project update - June

I know that it may look like I have been so preoccupied with the Reconciliation project that I haven't had time to focus on what started it all, the feature film.
I have to say though, shooting this film has helped clarify how I might go about shooting the feature, strategically and creatively.
Strategically, I mean how do you shoot a feature film with a limited budget and few resources? And creatively, I go back to some of the original questions I had, about the shooting style.
The stringent form that I borrowed from Haneke has helped me find a way to an answer. And I have been more attracted to Tarkovsky's solution: this shot leads inevitably to the next, even suggests it. Focus on this shot and the next will reveal itself. There is no concern with convention - I cannot tell you how liberating it is to be free of the establishing shot/medium shot/close-up rules. If the scene is not changed by your choice of shot then you are not being honest.
And tied up into this is more thoughts on Haneke, Tarkovsky and especially Bresson, and the idea of removing psychology. I feel this is the greatest weakness of my story so far.
As for strategy, doing this project has only made me more confident that shooting parts, as if a series of short films is the best strategy. I think though that I will look at them as more self-contained parts than I had prior to the project. More on this and future plans...