Why Tarkovsky and the long-take?

I need to say more about the theme.
One tenet: that we are different people with different people. Who we are and who we might become is dependent upon who we are with now and who we are with (or without) in the future.
Time and chance define our identity. In the three-story version each thread is equally valid. One may show the characters in one situation (in part one Sophie and Paul are a couple) and another in a different situation (Paul and Claire are a couple, at least temporarily, and Sophie, Claire's best friend, doesn't particularly like Paul).
Other threads overlap. In two, Paul is the person Claire left behind. In three it we see much of the same story from his viewpoint. Much is the same. Some is different.
Each thread of time is equally valid.
This is where I make the leap to the long-take: each captures a segment of each thread. Each is true, for that moment in time. One does not supersede the other. Each successive shot amplifies the effect. The edits would come naturally, joining two captures of time. The approach to the shooting, the shooting style, cannot be divorced from the essence of cinema.
You can see how this would be the case with number of short-takes. I feel that the weight of time would be absent, dispersed. The edits more a case of convention than anything else. Coverage.
At the same time I am not suggesting that each take = the scene, as in Haneke's Code Unknown.
Taking this approach into the studio with the actors, the construct of the long-take will shape the scene, pushed in one direction or another.