This is an odd commentary. The author focuses almost exclusively on plot, when Kane was simply a view of William Randolph Hearst—a power in the financing of the film industry. The magic of Kane is the cinematography, as Welles did so much with so little. Gregg Toland is as responsible for Kane as is Welles.

And this has little to do with Vertigo, which is driven by the awkward story, as the author points out. There were several films by Hitchcock that had similar cinematography—and this might be due to the camera technology more than the director. Hitchcock abandoned this camera for Psycho, and evidently couldn’t get it again for his later works—Torn Curtain, Topaz, Frenzy, and Family Plot. However, in terms of the process of film-making, Hitchcock was more impressive in other films. The set construction of Rear Window is one example.

I think the question now is whether the green screen has the same heart as the technicolor of Jack Cardiff or John Ford, or the black and white of Howard Hawks or Anthony Mann.