A look inside Hollywood and the movies. : CLASH OF THE TITANS : From the Predictable-Result File: One Director vs. a Child ‘Arnold’

Director Michael Lehmann, who felt the muscle of Bruce Willis and producer Joel Silver during the production of “Hudson Hawk,” hasn’t fared much better on what was to be his next movie: 20th Century Fox’s “The Good Son.”

This time, the 34-year-old director is up against 11-year-old Macaulay Culkin, star of Fox’s mega-hit “Home Alone,” which, with a $500-million gross worldwide, has made life considerably easier for Fox chief Joe Roth.

“The Good Son,” a $15-million project with an original script by Ian McEwan, concerns a 12-year-old boy who, after his mother’s death, is sent to live with his aunt, his uncle and two cousins--one of whom is evil.

Roth maintains that he offered the part of the evil cousin to Culkin eight months ago when Culkin’s father, Kit, requested material that would stretch his son a bit. Sources close to the production, however, tell a different tale, in which the child star refused to go ahead with the upcoming “Home Alone 2” unless he got the “Good Son” role.

Lehmann was not told Culkin had been offered the role when he signed to direct in April, sources insist; about 100 children were auditioned for the two male adolescent parts.

In August, Fox asked producer Laurence Mark and Lehmann to meet with Culkin in Pasadena, where he was presenting an Emmy award. No obligation to hire him, they said. Lehmann obliged, but felt that Culkin was too young--and not right--for the role as written.

That seemed to be that, until a month ago, when Culkin’s father advised the studio that Macaulay wanted the role. Eager to please him and fearful of jeopardizing the “Home Alone 2” deal (which had yet to be approved by the courts, a prerequisite for all contracts involving minors), the studio agreed. Shortly thereafter, Lehmann was informed that Culkin had the part, at a reported salary of $2 million. Because Culkin will begin shooting “Home Alone 2” in December, and both movies take place in the winter, “The Good Son” would have to be put on hold until next fall, at an estimated cost of $3 million to $4 million.

The studio’s strategy, say the sources: agree to give Culkin both movies, then get him to move aside so “The Good Son” could continue in its present form. Lehmann and Mark were sent to New York, where Culkin read some scenes for them. Lehmann remained unconvinced and later tried to persuade Kit Culkin to reconsider. Roth and “Home Alone” director John Hughes also made trips, but the Culkins stayed firm. A few weeks ago, the “Home Alone 2” deal, for which the actor is getting a reported $4 million to $5 million, was approved by the court.

Roth denies that anyone went to New York to pressure Culkin; they wanted to impress on him the impact of his decision and--before shutting down the “Good Son” set--to make sure he was committed to it. Rather than shutting down the set three weeks ago, when Culkin accepted the part, Roth says, he kept the production going in the hope that Lehmann would stay aboard.

Though the movie was originally scheduled to go before the cameras in early November, the set was officially shut down Oct. 15. Lehmann, who gets paid whether the movie is made or not, may not be aboard.

“This studio doesn’t shove directors out,” Roth says, “and I wanted to give Michael Lehmann every opportunity to come to terms with the decision and make the picture with Macaulay. A year is a long time, but the movie, which will have to be somewhat rewritten anyway, could certainly be set in the springtime. If Michael won’t do it, we’ll have to find someone else.”

Roth makes no apologies for casting Culkin.

“Will it cost more to push ‘The Good Son’ back a year?” he asks. “Absolutely. Is it worth it to have (Culkin) to open the picture around? Absolutely. We have a large investment in the movie, and now we have the only child in America that sells tickets starring in it. Having Macaulay in a child picture is like having Arnold Schwarzenegger in an action picture. Not to go with him would be like having Shirley Temple under contract and going with someone else.”