It may sound silly, but I was first introduced to Welles in the original Transformers animated movie where he provided the voice for Unicron, one of my all-time favorite villains, who spends most of the movie as a planetoid.

His voice shook the theater and is unmistakable to me to this day.

One of the greatest voice casting decisions of all time and one of his last roles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzNsOGt3bHk

Was his last role, and he didn't seem to pleased about it.

' You know what I did this morning? I played the voice of a toy." He elaborated, "I play a planet. I menace somebody called Something-or-other. Then I'm destroyed. My plan to destroy Whoever-it-is is thwarted and I tear myself apart on the screen." '

It seems telling that this article leaves out the fact that he became morbidly obese, which seems like something that often accompanies workaholism.

I feel these types of articles glorify work-o-holics, as if to indicate if you're not working 24/7, 365 days a year, you're not trying hard enough.

On the flip side, it's an example of how far you can push yourself when you're truly passionate about something.

I like how Joss Whedon put it:

(Paraphrasing) “Lots of people talk about workaholics, but hardly anyone mentions workaholism”.

Once you couch it in the latter term, it loses its patina of virtuousness.

If my personal experience is any judge, knowing (or dating) someone who works for Apple (and I'm sure several other high-drive companies) is half the journey to learning of the existence of "workaholism."

I'm a huge Welles fan, but I find it weird to talk about him as a "workaholic."

Not because he didn't spend a lot of time working (he did! Especially when he was young), but because so little of that time actually resulted in him accomplishing anything. His life story is full of half-finished and only-pushed-out-the-door-because-someone-forced-him-to projects.

Some of these are notorious, like Ambersons, but there are plenty of others. It's All True (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_All_True_%28film%29), for instance, a vaguely documentary-ish film he spent two years working on in Latin America during World War 2. He shot so much film for It's All True that the studio that eventually inherited it ended up dumping hundreds of thousands of feet of the damn stuff into the ocean just to get it off their books. But even with all that time and footage, he was never able to turn out a finished film.

Or his Don Quixote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote_%28unfinished_film...), which he started working on in 1955, spent more than a decade shooting, and which, unfinished and unreleased, he was still tinkering with when he died thirty years later.

Or The Other Side of the Wind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Side_of_the_Wind), also unfinished, which was how he spent the first half of the 1970s.

Or The Big Brass Ring (http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Brass-Ring-Screenplay/dp/09482...), a massive, turgid lump of a screenplay that he spent years flacking around Hollywood near the end of his life. (Another director actually managed to film it in 1999. Don't worry about trying to track it down. It is terrible.)

The article doesn't mention any of these projects. In fact it really doesn't mention anything he did after Ambersons. But when he walked away from Ambersons he was only 26 years old! He had more than 40 more productive years ahead of him. While he filled those years with work, though, he lacked focus, lacked discipline, and that lack sabotaged him over and over and over again. He never learned the lesson that "great artists ship." And that's why the story of his life reads as much like a tragedy as it does a tale of genius.

I think he also may have gotten caught in the trap of early success.

If you view projects as something where you need to surpass your previous work, surpassing something like Citizen Kane, which consistently is named one of the best movies of all time, seems daunting. I can see why that could lead to the same sort of paralysis or the same problem of "only working on Big problems/projects" that Hamming mentions in the repeatedly linked here "You and your Research". (http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html)

Workaholism is a matter of input, not output.

I'm a great fan of Welles and I think politics took one of the great creative geniuses from us. As for workaholism, if you love what you are doing, you wouldn't want to do anything else. It's a global minima as opposed to being a local manima and one needs effort to move from there.

"He didn't sleep for two days, and he slept, ate, and directed from a couch in the center of the theater." Urgh, lazy wording.

@dang, out of curiosity, why the title change? The title as posted is that of the article.

We changed the title to another phrase from the article which advertises the content without the linkbait-y reference to "you".

General note: he made ONE great film (Kane), a few good ones (Ambersons, F For Fake, Chimes) and the rest were howlers or just dull. I can't watch Lady From Shanghai because of of his awful accent, plus it's s bit dull. Touch of Evil was almost good but 45 minutes too long. Genius? Nah.

I disagree. I believe his narration of "War of the worlds" was incredible and the opening sequence of "Touch of Evil" is one of the best ever.

He never got the same creative freedom as he got while creating Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane wasn't a blockbuster of it's time as many theaters refused to play when they came under pressure from Hearst. Following which he spent his time in England.

His battle with Hearst has been documented in quite a few places[0].

[0] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kane2/

It is true that the common wisdom says Hearst destroyed Welles' career as revenge for Citizen Kane, but I'm not sure it's that cut and dried. For example, Robert Wise (who worked with him in his early career and eventually went on to surpass him in terms of success and output) disagreed with the idea that Welles was held back:

"Not true there was a cabal preventing Orson from making more films. He simply never fulfilled himself after that magnificent start; his own fault - lack of self-discipline."[1]

See also this comment[2] right here in this HN story which goes into some more detail about Welles' chronic string of failed projects.

While Hearst may have done some damage, I think ultimately it was possible to Welles to recover, but he unfortunately spiraled down the drain instead.

  [1] http://imdb.com/name/nm0936404/bio
  [2] https://hackertimes.com/item?id=9503266

This is an interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. I'm not sure I would take Wise's word on it but anyways this gives me an intriguing angle to dig deeper.

How many of the greatest films of all time was he supposed to make to be considered a genius? Also, he was pretty accomplished in radio and theatre in addition to film.

I'd argue ambersons was a great film before being recut. Radio was his strong suit too.

He was a genius, but was unable to compromise to make commercial reality, and like many workaholics, his star burnt oh so brightly, but went out predictably fast.

The Trial is perhaps a better film than Kane.

The Stranger was pretty good. For what he had to work with--he was brilliant.

Othello is a masterpiece.

he was also a great actor in the third man