Kane Mutiny : Culture: A giant mural of Michael Jackson is planned for a Hollywood building, but some people would rather see Orson Welles honored.

Robert Nudelman wants Michael Jackson to know one thing up front: This is not personal.

Nudelman, a Hollywood activist and film buff, acknowledges that the entertainer--although not exactly his cup of tea--has talents that deserve recognition. If properly located, Nudelman says, an 80-foot, three-dimensional mural of Jackson might prove to be a popular addition to Hollywood Boulevard.

But ever since Nudelman learned that the Hollywood Arts Council is planning to install such a mural on the east face of the historic El Capitan Theater building, he has had a hard time keeping quiet. He wants to keep Jackson off the wall. And he wants to put Orson Welles on.

Nudelman, who in 1990 helped persuade the Walt Disney Co. to spend $6 million restoring the El Capitan to its original splendor, says that instead of a flashy monument to the Moonwalker, a simple black-and-white portrait of the late actor-director would be more in keeping with the elegant movie house.

After all, Nudelman said last week as the scaffolding for the Jackson mural was installed on the side of the theater, Welles’ 1941 classic “Citizen Kane” was the first film shown there. Jackson may be world famous, but Welles is a Hollywood legend, said Nudelman, founder of a group called Citizens for Kane.

The man-in-the-mural muddle--the latest controversy to engulf the 66-year-old El Capitan building--is much more than an artistic squabble or a skirmish between fan clubs. Coming as it does amid the city’s 30-year urban renewal project in central Hollywood, the debate about whether Jackson or Welles--or nobody--should be allowed to peer down from the whitewashed wall has become a battle over the neighborhood’s future.

Nudelman, who has gathered more than 1,000 signatures on a petition in support of a Welles mural, believes that the Jackson mural will set a poor precedent, promoting glitz over grandeur and discouraging future refurbishment of historic buildings. He is not alone.

“My personal opinion is this is not the best idea for the city’s efforts to restore the boulevard to a delightful place,” said Crosby Doe, vice president of Hollywood Heritage Inc., a Los Angeles preservation group that has come out against the “scale and scope”--though not specifically the content--of the Jackson mural. “People will see the sign, not the building.”

But supporters of the project--including Councilman Michael Woo, who represents Hollywood--said the mural will complement the building, enlivening the street by attracting visitors.

“Aside from our goal of preserving historic landmarks, we should not be afraid to create new landmarks,” Woo said. “We want to encourage a real pedestrian environment that appeals to the executive carrying the attache case as well as the kid with the boombox. It’s hard for me to imagine a person who represents that popular appeal better than Michael Jackson.”

During the past two weeks, the Jackson project has cleared what appears to be the last of its regulatory hurdles, winning approval from the Community Redevelopment Agency, which oversees the city’s Hollywood renewal project, and from the city’s Cultural Heritage Commission.

Earlier, the project won the support of the Los Angeles Conservancy, which has authority over the building’s facade. Linda Dishman, conservancy executive director, confirmed last week that the Hollywood Arts Council will pay her group a monthly “administration fee” in return for the conservancy’s expertise, but she declined to say how much.

According to CRA officials, the Heritage Commission and the conservancy, their duty was to ensure that the mural, which will be painted on canvas and mounted on the wall for up to 10 years, did not damage the historic fabric of the building. They had no authority, they said, over content. In fact, not one of them saw a detailed model of the mural before they signed off on it.

“I saw a very rough sketch--Michael Jackson sort of jumping up in some kind of formal costume doing a dance step,” said Adolfo Nodal, general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs. But because the mural is an “applique,” not an architectural addition, Nodal said that no matter what the subject matter, “we couldn’t stop them from doing it. . . . Whether we like it or not, it’s not our jurisdiction.”

The building’s owners, who say they are charging the Arts Council “very low” rent for use of their wall, say they, too, have no power to change the mural.

A year ago, co-owner Nick Olaerts said, he and partner Tom Harnsberger signed a contract allowing the mural to be mounted to the El Capitan building because they believed that any project that had the backing of the Los Angeles Conservancy must also have the support of the broader community.

Given the scrutiny that several groups had focused on all aspects of the El Capitan Theater renovation, he said, “when we didn’t hear from anyone on this large an issue, we had to assume it (the mural) had support. I thought: ‘Geez, how do I argue with that?’ ”

Lately, Olaerts said, he has received daily calls from people complaining about the Michael Jackson project.

“I’m asking people: ‘Why didn’t you say something (before)?’ I only wanted to do this thing if it served the community and (if) those who care about the community agreed it was appropriate,” he said. “The last thing I want to do is have this move make more people mad than it makes happy.”

“But what am I gonna do?” he asked. “I have a contract.”

Even officials at Disney, which leases the theater from Olaerts, say the content of the mural is out of their hands.

“We don’t have any say at all. . . . It’s not something we really ought to comment on because we can’t have any effect,” said Richard Cook, president of Buena Vista Pictures Distribution Co., Disney’s distribution arm. “I hope it’s beautiful.”

Whether it will be remains a mystery. Some who have seen sketches say Jackson, donning a flat-brimmed hat, is pictured flexing his legs, with his arms outstretched. The singer’s right hand, which will extend outward from the southern edge of the mural, will be lighted with strobes to make it appear to be moving.

“It’s going to make art news worldwide,” said Oscar Arslanian, a Hollywood Arts Council trustee who has done his best to keep the mural project secret.

Arslanian will not say who has donated the money for the privately financed mural, though he confirms that Jackson, who has given it his blessing, is not among its sponsors. Arslanian will not say when the project will be completed, though he says he hopes that it will be unveiled before Jackson begins an international tour on June 27.

When asked to describe the mural’s design, Arslanian will only call it “indigenous” and “very profound.”

“A lot of people going down that boulevard for the last 40 years have not noticed that building. Now they will,” he said. “Hollywood stands to totally gain.”

Vicki Myers is not so sure. The office manager at Barton Myers Associates, an architectural firm with offices on the second floor of the El Capitan building, called the mural “a terrible idea. We need dignity in Hollywood, not kitsch.”

If Jackson’s likeness goes up, Myers said, she will be thankful that she works inside the building it is mounted on. “At least,” she said, “we won’t have to look at it.”

But Gregory Downs will. From his eighth floor office in the American Savings building across the street, Downs, a production coordinator at the American Cinematheque, looks out at the wall where the mural will go.

“It doesn’t belong there, that’s what I think. It’s not old Hollywood,” Downs said last week as a team of construction workers covered the wall with a scaffolding. “I guess it doesn’t take artistic values these days. All it takes is money.”

Woo concedes that part of the reason he is supporting the Jackson project is that its funding is in place.

“I would have no problem with putting up an Orson Welles mural, if we had a way to get it paid for,” the councilman said. “Here, we have the proverbial bird in the hand. Someone’s willing to pay for the mural. Michael Jackson is willing to be in the mural. I think we should accept this gift to the street.”

Woo said there is room in Hollywood for both Jackson and Welles--though Welles, who put on weight in his later years, might require a wider canvas.

“We’d have to find a squat building somewhere,” the councilman said.

“Michael’s much thinner, and therefore much easier,” joked Kent Twitchell, the artist. “I’d love to do Orson Welles. He’s our very own American Olivier, is he not? . . . But there’s too much paint required. And I don’t have that big a studio.”

Nudelman, meanwhile, has not given up. Last week, he contacted state preservation officials and pleaded his case, pointing out that the Jackson mural is the second pop icon to win approval. A few buildings away on Hollywood Boulevard, a Godzilla-type figure is proposed for atop the planned Ripley’s Believe It or Not Museum.

If all else fails, Nudelman said, he has pinned his hopes on Jackson himself.

“He’s hard to reach, but I’m trying to get his attention,” he said of the reclusive performer. Despite the latest fracas, he said, he and Jackson have something in common. “He’s a big film fan. Here’s a chance for Michael to do something no one else has been able to do--give Orson Welles his due.”