The long, rich career of Orson Welles

Gary Giddens writes in today's NY Times (in a review of the second volume of Simon Callow's biography of Orson Welles):

"For here is the crux of the Welles conundrum, boiled down to one question: Which is the more impressive feat? A gifted young man is given a film studio, its technicians and almost unlimited funds to make any movie he desires, and he comes up with “Citizen Kane.” A mature, experienced, stubbornly individual artist in middle age, working with little more than rent money and spit, makes “Chimes at Midnight.” The first film revolutionized cinema, yet merely hints at the sublimity of the later work. The question implies — as does “Hello Americans” — that the Welles debate has shifted ground. It used to center on the cause of his decline: Was the fault in Welles, the stars, the system? Now the decline itself is in question."

Exactly. One of the reason Welles is so highly regarded by his fans is that he was not courting perfection, he was endlessly curious, even restless. Anyone who sees his later works like "F for Fake" knows his brilliance and creativity never waned. He may never have created another film as formally "perfect" or as perfectly entertaining or astounding as Kane (though we'll never know since "Ambersons" was so mutilated), but his later projects (no matter what state they are left in) are always fascinating.