To Harvey's comment,
I'm sure Spielberg picked up on this, figuring Welles wouldn't be around much longer.
what you're saying, then, is that, for reasons of Welles' evident ill health alone, his project was an even less viable investment. Add that to Welles' (more than) rumoured failures to deliver on other projects when he was in much better shape and perhaps Spielberg's lack of investment enthusiasm at the time was less "damnable" than our luxurious hindsight now makes it out to be.
Spielberg wanting to keep a wandering wife out of temptation's reach? How exactly was that a damnable impulse? Not picking up the tab? Sure, it seems miserly and might well have been so - vengeful, even. I don't know; I wasn't there. Neither was Brady, as best I can tell. Then again, where we males and our egos are involved, all manner of posturing and one-upmanship have been known to intrude on our off-the-cuff judgment or to colour our later recollection of events. And, as far as stiffing restaurant companions goes, someone recount for me, please, Welles' own history in that department.
Look, the fact that - given the same money and the same opportunity - we might have acted very differently is well and good. Bully for us. How that gives us licence to find nothing but fault with someone who, for reasons we don't truly know, opted to do otherwise escapes me.
As for your DeMillian dismissal, tony, I invite you to find the likes of a "Sugarland Express", "Empire of the Sun", "Schindler's List", "Amistad", "Saving Private Ryan" or even "The Terminal" among Cecil B's directorial credits.
As I stated earlier, I am no great fan of Spielberg; but I am even less a fan of judgmentalism or "piling on." Heaven help us should we find ourselves one day subjected to similar treatment.
And here I thought that taking a scythe to the tall poppies was a uniquely Canadian trait....