Also, instead of saying: "Although my methodology is bricolage, I will also be undertaking a practice as research.", I would say: "My methodology combines bricolage and practice as research" (as in doing so, explains their relationship).

I would also enclose this within brackets - so that they add meaning but that in doing two, don't distract from your central point.

Remember to always use P-E-E: http://folksonomy.co/?permalink=4192 So, I would change this paragraph to: Using bricolage provides a more flexible approach to production, which is divorced from the linear requirements. In doing so, it allows me to create tentative experiments, which in being free of the constraints of an overarching purpose - allowed me to try out options according to their best fit according to the changing circumstances of the project. As Matt Rogers explains, bricolage "can be considered a critical, multi-perspectival, multi-theoretical and multi-methodological approach to inquiry" (2012). In the context of my project, this has meant that the process has allowed me to consider all aspects of the project simultaneously - something, which is generally not possible using conventional filmmaking methods.

Also, note that 'centring' is the British English spelling of your (American English) "centering"

Note that the linear that you mean here is spelt 'linear' - not 'linier'

It would be good to know more about this (as failing to do so kind of voids its inclusion here).

"completed"

Presumably you edited for this i.e. that you intentionally left shots longer to ensure that there was 'space' left to add in further elements (there's a tendency to leave shots too short when editing only the pictures).

This is actually a 'concept' i.e. it's simply about pragmatics. It describes an approach to filmmaking - that you begin by creating a visual interpretation of the story, which you subsequently 'apply' the soundtrack to (this is the opposite approach to making music videos). While working this way around is pretty conventional - it has the added complexity for you because the shots don't have duration. It would be good to explain how you planned for this earlier on (as doing so, will demonstrate that you're not simply 'responding to problems as they arise' i.e. this is less good when it comes to AC 5).

I would tend to underline this concept - as it's not something that you have control over at this stage with conventional filmmaking (where your shot durations are already set).

'Adobe Premiere Pro'

It would be good for you to explain this concept (perhaps through reference to some examples) - just so that it's clear that you're not simply telling me back what I told you. Here are a few examples I have (although you might find better): In-between Narratives: http://folksonomy.co/?keyword=28620 Eugène Atget 'Boulevard de Strasbourg 1912: http://folksonomy.co/?permalink=96 Some obvious film examples are: The Hangover (2009), Sunset Boulevard (1950)

To remove some of the 'personal, this is what I think' aspect of your commentary - perhaps introduce this as: "The conceit of the phone call seemed like a really useful approach to narrating the film" i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceit

I would generally expect this to appear within brackets.

Perhaps explain this as 'metaphorically' evoking the idea of death and dying.

Perhaps italicise this to add emphasis (but only the first instance where it appears).

Capitalise this - it' a proper noun (like your name etc).

Do you have evidence of this? If so, perhaps include it with an 'Appendices' section (that you link to directly within the body of your commentary here). No biggie if you don't have evidence of this - it could (kind of) be used for AC5 (although I'm sure you'll have plenty to evidence this AC anyway) - just a thought.

Did you reevaluate and alter your course of action here? If so, what you're talking about is a more 'iterative approach' - or in more philosophical terms, this is a 'hermeneutical process' e.g. this from page 13 in the following: "We move from partial and disjointed insights to an understanding of the whole and back to the yet-to-be-understood portions"

See: Adrian Snodgrass and Richard Coyne (1997) 'Is Designing Hermeneutical?', Architectural Theory Review, Journal of the Department of Architecture, The University of Sydney, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 65–97. : http://folksonomy.co/?permalink=459 (PDF version of the article included at the base of link).

This points to a more 'linear' method of production i.e. the pragmatics of making such a work. You could 'frame' this with something about 'methodology' or 'methodological approach' - basically, you're describing your approach to enacting a plan - and so, this assumes that you then have such a plan that you're following. But unlike traditional filmmaking, where 'the plan' is inextricably linked with the screenwriting process (and assumed linear 'production pipeline') what you're describing is a plan as a 'mode of operating / an approach to production', which in doing so, talks about attitudes and propensities - in short, a methodological approach to production.

This is (kind of) a 'collage' process: http://folksonomy.co/?keyword=671

You're (kind of) narrativising your project as if you knew how it would turn out before you made it - perhaps weave into your commentary here the fact that - as per the way that creative things work - some of your project emerged in the process of making/considering it. And that in doing so, some of what you're describing here would be better described as 'post-hoc interpretation' (interpretation after the fact).

You could describe this as using a 'bricolage approach' e.g. John Ebdon: http://folksonomy.co/?permalink=631 Note that Claude Lévi-Strauss originated the concept e.g. "bricoleur ... uses what’s there to get a particular job done" https://literariness.org/2016/03/21/claude-levi-strauss-concept-of-bricolage/ Note that I'm mentioning this here because this is a 'named concept', which you might use as a way of conceptualising your approach to creative production (that you're a bricoleur). For example - this kind of describes what you've done (also from the link above): "Levi-Strauss compares the working of the bricoleur and the engineer. The bricoleur, who is the “savage mind”, works with his hands in devious ways, puts pre-existing things together in new ways, and makes do with whatever is at hand. What Levi-Strauss points out here is that signs already in existence are used for purposes that they were originally not meant for."

How have you attributed their contribution? Perhaps, include mention of their contribution in your credits and include a page per contributor within your Groundwork. This might be presented like a storyboard i.e. a grid of small images - where each grid is attributed to a named contributor (with one grid per page). Then, I would link to this within the body of your Wix site (if each 'grid' is on its own page then they will have discrete URLs). Note that this broadly attends to AC 5/6

of 36 (or 24) exposures? Note that this is one of those details that you'd expect to read if someone is talking about 'rolls' of film.

I would include the film's author i.e. Chris Marker