What I have learned so far

I am have completed three rough edits of Reconciliation (see my other blog for the latest information) and have become objective enough to see two major weaknesses.
First, a problem that I has come up before: the weakness what has been referred to in Ozu as codas, those static shots, inserted between scenes. Kieslowski did something else. He often used objects, which became extensions of scenes or characters. Think of the glass ball which Veronka plays with in The Double Life of Veronique, or the fabulous cube of sugar in the cafe in Blue. In Reconciliation the results have not been very strong and seems it is down to the fact that I am not able to communication what is required and how critical these shots are. Perhaps one of the problems is that they are called inserts in the film industry here, which makes them an afterthought. I am uncertain how to solve the problem.
Secondly, I have found that I was not as successful as I would have liked in developing the shots in the in Scene 5. Remember, one of the experiments was to develop the story with successive shots, never returning to the same shot, such as the establishing shot as you would in continuity editing. In Scene 5 he is in the kitchen talking on the phone. This is 5A, a medium close-up.












At one point he bumps into some pots and looks off. Then we cut to her in the living room. This is 5B, a medium shot.












We hear him in the background, still on the phone, as she tries to read a magazine without much success. Finally she gives up, goes into the kitchen and retrieves the vacuum cleaner, he still on the phone. I went wider on the last shot. This is 5C.












Looking at these shots now it seems that shots don't succeed each other. There is not enough of a difference between 5A and 5C. It feels we are going backwards. Now this is not a matter of the shots or angles, but rather the script: For him 5C is a continuation of 5A. A weakness of the script.