Blown away

I resisted the temptation of writing about Corey Haim, the child star whose career - and, ultimately, his life - ended before he got old, even if he was old in spirit.

To a writer, however, Hollywood and its actors are, in some cases, part of a a tragedy right out of Hamlet, and even King Lear. Unfortunately, their dying breaths seem to always come after appearing on a reality T.V. show, like "Celebrity Rehab" and "The Two Coreys," turning their once-promising careers that would be fit for a front-page obituary into a punchline that's panel talk on "Larry King Live."

As Shakespeare said, the world is a stage; all the people are merely players. Hollywood, in turn, is the world's most enduring circus.

Looking back, Haim's story was as old as any tragic child star's. He looked like another player in the circus. He looked like another addict who couldn't even survive in a reality T.V. show, even one with his name, because his addiction to drugs was too strong.

But as with any case involving drugs, mental illness or anything else that leads to an end that's tragic, the whole story never really gets told. Instead, it's blinded by the popping flashbulbs and large-type headlines that offer few lessons but plenty of gossip.

Judging by the tributes coming from those who know and understand film, Haim had a gift that was unique. He had the skills that should have put him on the stage of the Academy Awards on Sunday, and not have made him the subject of TMZ gossip fodder on Wednesday. As we've seen time and again, the skills are no match for the addiction. The Betty Ford Clinic is no alternative to the circus.

And the circus merely feeds the beast, over and over, destroying our most talented people. Hollywood has never come clean with its addictions; instead, it seems to aid and abett until it destroys.

The only movie of Haim's that I can remember was "Blown Away," a straight-to-HBO flick from 1992 that is known more for the beauty of Baywatch star Nicole Eggert than anything else (one of my most vivid memories as a 25-year-old bachelor was watching her, in this movie, over and over again as it lingered through the HBO repeat cycle, catering to an audience of early-to-mid-twentysomethings who had nothing better to do than ... well ... watch her).

All these tributes (tributes?) that came from Larry King and the like seemed like hungry ratings grabbers - probably the best ratings Haim ever had or ever would have seen. The story is so cliche now, the former child star gone bad whose life ends tragically.

Larry King and Nancy Grace are always ready to pounce on a story like this like they're televised undertakers. They give them the same recycled eulogy that they gave for the "lost" stars of "Different Strokes" and "Lost Boys" (Haim's most well-known flick), and invite the same people on their show who probably did little to nothing to head their friends off from disaster.

But there was one tribute out there that I came across that was actually old, but it struck me as profound, if not a bit strange. It was a 23-year-old review from Roger Ebert that was mentioned in a Washington Post online slideshow. Ebert said Haim, after watching his performance in "Lucas," was destined for stardom as long as he didn't follow the path of so many other child stars, and screw up his life.

He said that Haim had a complexity to his character, and to his acting, that he hadn't seen in years. Ebert seemed to suggest that he could have been as big as Tom Cruise, Robert Downey Jr., Sean Penn or any of the gifted actors - maybe even bigger - who survived the 1980s and lived to have an enduring career.

Haim never realized that potential, and his life was more complicated than complex. He turned to crack and pills and a host of many other drugs that made him look like he was 50 when he was 35 years old. He turned a complex acting skill and a promising career into a Dana Plato cliche.

And, yet, maybe Ebert was right, because I still remember him from that movie, "Blown Away," just as much as I remember Eggert. I remember thinking that, hey, here was a guy around my age who had a presence. He did have complexity, because he had diversity in emotions. He did have range, because he was able to play roles that were good and bad, in films that were quality and schlock.

He was a guy you could identify with, because he didn't have Brad Pitt looks. He looked like the "everyman," and he was able to lift "Blown Away" (there was a lot of room for improvement) into something more than eye candy.

The dialogue was horrible. The plot - Haim and Eggert played two lovers who conspired to kill Eggert's father, with Eggert being the chief plotter - was as ridiculous as any of the forgettable movies that cycle through HBO at 1 a.m.

But you've got to respect an actor who can do his best in a bad situation. Even in this cheesy movie, he had the foundation of a promising career that Ebert talked about. Yet, he was another artist with a crutch. He was yet another example of a profession that requires emotional depth and range of its workers. Many can't meet that demand because of their own personal instability and insecurities.

All they have left is a daily dosage of 85 pills - Haim's daily intake - and a career in tatters with no highwire safety net from the Hollywood circus to save them.