Christoph Waltz, the Austrian actor who received widespread acclaim for his role as Hans Landa in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, just added a directing gig to his already-busy schedule.

The Hollywood Reporter is reporting that Waltz is going to direct Auf und Davon (Up and Away) off his own script, based on the novel with the same name.

After his mainstream success in “Basterds,” Waltz filmed the role of the villain, Chudnofsky, in Michael Gondry’s The Green Hornet, which is set to be released at Christmas. He has also signed on to Water for Elephants and is considering a role in A Little War of Our Own, so it will probably be some time before this movie gets off the ground.

U&A is the story of a woman who “is the ruthless host of a dating show competition. She finds herself in over her head when the show’s romantic story line bumps into her own feelings for a contestant.” Sounds like a typical rom-com to me, but, with Waltz, I’m not sure.

You can tell that he definitely has a sense of humor — both from his role in Inglourious Basterds and his charming Oscar acceptance speech.

The movie would mark his feature-directing debut, as he has previously only directed for television.

Fox International Productions is financing, but that doesn’t mean it will play in the US. President Sanford Panitch said, “While Christoph’s rise to international stardom will continue, we are very proud to collaborate with him on his very own project.”

I am really glad to see this awesome actor get more work. He was terrific as “The Jew-Hunter” and seems like a nice guy.

Since the dawn of the motion picture industry people have been trying to capture the essence of Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre on film. In fact, since the first silent film was released in 1915 there has been at least one movie or television adaptation per decade.

Cary Fukunaga’s new project will be the first feature-length Jane of the new millennium.

On the heels of the BBC’s successful Jane Eyre miniseries in 2007, which garnered three Emmy Awards, the company announced plans early in 2008 to produce a Jane Eyre for the big screen. Ruby Films and Focus Features signed on for production as well.

Like the most recent television and film adaptations, this new project will also be a period piece. However, the screenplay, written by Moira Buffini, sets a foundation for the project to capitalize on the more gothic elements of the story.

While Ellen Page had signed on for the title role back in May of 2008, casting and starting dates have shifted. As the film moves through pre-production with a release date set in 2011, we have been given a new Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester.

Mia Wasikowska, a name best associated with Tim Burton’s upcoming Alice in Wonderland, will be playing Jane. Michael Fassenbender, most recognized for his part as the British officer Lieutenant Archie Hicox in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, is set to play Rochester.

Fassenbender is thirteen years older than Wasikowska. He is ruggedly handsome and she is beautifully plain. We know little outside the actors’ faces and the promise of gothic underpinnings; however, I feel this production is already off to being the first to capture that elusive quality of Brontë’s novel that others have missed.

This is a cool little bit of news.

Universal (and probably all the big guns will follow suit, with the exception of Sony, perhaps) is pairing some of its upcoming Bluray releases with iPhone and iPod Touch apps that will allow for handheld interaction with the film while you are watching it on the screen.

Namely, for Bruno, Funny People, 9, American Pie Presents: The Book of Love, Public Enemies and Inglourious Basterds (which one of these doesn’t seem to fit in?) you’ll be able to access a bunch of features using the new “pocket BLU.” Pocket BLU will access your iPhone’s wifi connection and seamlessly link that to the network connection in the Bluray player itself.

According to the official press release, some of the features available through the pocket BLU app are:

• Advanced Remote Control: A sleek, elegant new way to operate your Blu-ray™ player. Users can navigate through menus, playback and BD-Live™ functions with ease.

• Video Timeline: By turning the phone to landscape mode, users will bring up the video timeline, allowing them to instantly access any point in the movie.

• Mobile-To-Go: Users can unlock a selection of exclusive bonus content with their Blu-ray™ discs to save to their device or to stream from anywhere there’s a Wi-Fi network, enabling them to enjoy exclusive content on the go, anytime, anywhere.

• Browse Titles: Users will have access to a complete list of pocket BLU™-enabled titles available and coming to Blu-ray™ Hi-Def. They can view free previews and see what additional content is available to unlock on their device.

• Pop-Up Keyboard: Enter data into a Blu-ray player with this easy and intuitive keyboard that will facilitate such Blu-ray™ features as chatting with friends and sending messages.

If you can’t wait to see what all the fuss is about, the pocket BLU app is available in the iTunes app store now, so go grab it and then pick up one of these Blurays when they get released soon!

Note: The following essay, which is obviously being published months after the release of Inglourious Basterds, was written for a literary criticism class that explores theory behind literary criticism and focuses on analyzing textual works from a variety of perspectives. This assignment involved using these tools of literature to explore a work outside of the written word — I chose Inglourious Basterds.  I thought I’d share it in order to show just how relevant Basterds is to the craft as a whole, so enjoy it!

To argue that filmed media such as motion pictures and television shows should not be judged or viewed in the same critical light as a piece of literature is overlooking an essential facet of this media. Film is rooted in the written word, and every event in motion is sparked by a screenplay that could easily merit a critical analysis of form, depth, and “literariness.” Literature and film are not not mere tangents of each other, nor do they share vague, accidental similarities, but instead exist as branches of one tree that infinitely stretch out to layer the world around us. Thus, film is as readily analyzable as any written text, as long as a critic is willing to examine this medium by using the theory behind literary form.

Jonathan Culler’s tri-fold definition of literariness can easily apply to the arena of film without need for much adjustment. However, to attempt to find the “best” example of a film that possesses literary qualities is a fool’s errand. Such a quest attempts to differentiate too greatly between the two mediums of literature and film, or between all existent art forms, for that matter. I can name fifteen films on the shelf behind me that have moved me as greatly as any novel while not forsaking depth, subtext, characterization or intricacy for dazzling effects work. I choose to use as an example the film that is not only freshest in my memory, but also has expanded in meaning and shifted my perceptions upon subsequent viewings — a surefire sign of scholarly attention to detail. This film is Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, which is layered with deft material by a keen artisan’s eye, resulting in a text that cries out to be explored from poetic and hermeneutical vantage points.

Culler states that to analyze literature is to “keep before us … the suspension of the demand for immediate intelligibility” (Culler 41). In a broader, more accessible sense, I feel this is the critical ability to revel in a sort of pleasant (or unpleasant, if the writer sees fit) ambiguity as an arc of characters and storyline unfolds. This is highly contrasted with our day-to-day lives, in which dialogue is simple and functional, and our worldly imagery is often taken at face value. The best films are able to tap into this ideal uniquely — a film leaves no breathing room as far as imagery goes. Readers of novels may envision a thousand different faces for a given character, a thousand intonations of a given sentence. Brought to life on the screen by actors and directors, however, a screenplay becomes more specific. This may be seen as a constraint that limits the extent of a film’s “literariness,” which forces a filmmaker to expand depth by detailing between the lines. This can be achieved through depth of cinematography and detail or the minute variables of inflection behind lines of dialogue. Thus, literariness in film is embodied in the work of every person responsible for a movie, from screenwriters to actors to the key grip who lights up sets.

One specific way Inglourious Basterds transcends this constraint is in the myriad oblique ways it hints and doesn’t tell. Tarantino demonstrates an ability to breathe life into every living corner of the film for our analysis. Why, for instance, are the titular Basterds only peripheral characters in a movie that bears their name, and only tangentially related to the film’s outcome? It is up to the critic to decipher the deliberate misspelling of the title, and the possibly unintentional filmmaking mistakes — a need for immediate intelligibility is expanded, and the implication of the misspelling is instead dwelled upon. The title of the film is scrawled in the opening credits with Tarantino’s own handwriting as depicted on the cover for his original screenplay. But why? Why is such a personal flair so asymmetrical from the rest of Tarantino’s catalogue utilized in this particular film, or is it of importance at all? To seek an answer to this question is a viable option for the same reason any literary text is worthy of analysis, under the umbrella that Culler labels the “hyper-protected cooperative principle,” which proclaims that the mere existence of such a potential irrelevancy dictates its importance and worthiness of exploration (Culler 62). Outside of the realm of literariness — in this case, embodied in the screenplay and finished film — this misspelling would be seen as ignorant nonsense, an unfortunately personalized typo.

Culler also cites the importance of “reflection on the implication of means of expression” (Culler 41). Through cinematography, a film has the power to express theme and voice on an almost subconscious level, when executed correctly. There are moments within Inglourious Basterds that are downright blatant in their homage to expressionism (or is it expressionism itself?), layering new and often unsettling meanings upon images that we’re familiar with from films such as The Wizard of Oz in a striking example of postmodern metafiction. But it’d be a disservice to the film to call the references it makes entirely blatant; a greater percentage of the imagery functions on another level. For instance, it can’t be unintentional that the introduction of “The Bear Jew” occurs in a leafy drainage system subconsciously evocative of the Holocaust imagery we’re so accustomed to. Or can it? The director certainly had a hand in the formation of sets and the scouting of locations for filming. Is it an accident that our minds are trained toward that grim thought, or are we being towed by successful filmmaking? These are the same sort of questions we may read into a novel: is it happenstance that a new story may evoke the characters of Shakespeare or the imagery of The Odyssey? The craftsman filmmaker, like the master of literature, has a keen understanding of where the branches of his or her tree may extend into the consciousness — what themes are similarly evoked, and where the roots for their own work rest in the ground. This tree only extends further by inviting the critic (as a work of literature does) to invest the film with his or her own interpretations, and exploring the possibilities of reference and depth.

Thus, Inglourious Basterds is operating on two levels intertwined: the first seeks to deliver a visceral and emotional experience solely through unique imagery — one unaware of The Wizard of Oz would simply be struck by Inglourious Basterds’ power. The latter operation is the film’s process of drawing attention to its own references, demanding for the critic to contemplate deliberate strokes and their implications in the broader spectrum of film and storytelling. This is quite comparable to two central methods of research used by psychologists in order to investigate human behavior, beliefs, and motives. The idiographic approach is an attempt to study the uniqueness of an individual, and the differences that distinguish that individual from the rest of society. The nomothetic approach, on the other hand, investigates the common threads between people by studying a wider range of individuals at once. Thus, the first level of analysis of this film (in other words, emphasizing the emotional experience conveyed by its imagery) could be equated to an idiographic approach or a case study, in which the uniqueness of Inglourious Basterds as a work of art becomes apparent. Contrarily, the second level can be seen as a nomothetic attempt to embed the film in a world that serves to deepen the meaning of Tarantino’s work.

This world doesn’t strictly apply to the spectrum of film, but to a vast universe of references. Take, for example, the interrogation scene of a Nazi officer in the aforementioned drainage system. As the scene (in which the rebellious Jewish “Basterds” gain the upper hand) becomes more and more brutal, a single, yellow, dead leaf falls from an overhanging tree in the autumn scene. The leaf floats down and finally rests on the chest of a Basterd played by Gedeon Burkhard. It is inarguable that this leaf upon landing resembles the Star of David, enough so that the eye is always drawn to it in the moment. The way this transpires onscreen indicates that it was most likely not a planned event — there are no camera tricks to be found, no special effects — so the moment exists as a lucky result of actor placement and good timing. The craft and literariness of the work dwells in Tarantino’s knowing use of the moment, as a director and editor, to expand the depth of the scene in unanticipated ways. The leaf could simply be seen as an accident, or a deliberate stroke to invest a scene of visceral brutality with a stamp of cultural significance and history. The moment could be inherently beautiful, as any successful piece of literature is, or aesthetically gripping due to the schema of connections it creates, subconsciously weaving pulp fiction into a realistic context.

This isn’t to say that context — either filmic or historical — is the essential element in viewing a film through the lens of literature. However, in the case of Inglourious Basterds (and much of Tarantino’s remaining catalogue), this is likely to be the most dominant ingredient. Tarantino is simply so precocious in his knowledge of film that his work has often been criticized as moving beyond intertextuality toward blatant homage and plagiarism. It would be hard to argue against the fact that his style is blatant; however, it would be harder to argue that it thrives perfectly by serving as a commentary upon both the world of film and the real world that has produced these films. Intertextuality is present between Inglourious Basterds and the surface of media violence that has enabled its existence, just as intertexuality is present between the film and those who have paved the way for it.

To exemplify the intertextuality on display in the film, it is important to examine Culler’s statements regarding the importance of the critic’s attention to “how meaning is made and pleasure produced” (Culler 41). In the case of Inglourious Basterds, the work particularly thrives in the way it has divided the spectrum of its critical audience. It bisects the attentive viewer by heaping a great deal of excitatory violence on his or her plate as a means of release; one feels their blood boiling as tension builds in the film and violence is ratcheted up. However, the film simultaneously forces this viewer to question the emotion felt due to the subject material at hand: as an audience member, are you being asked to make a judgment call on the appropriateness of violence in cinema? If so, what does this say about your bloodlust, your fascination with what is transpiring? These are questions that are actively asked throughout the film. Tarantino is manipulative in Inglourious Basterds, and his work is self-aware. As perverse and cartoonish as many of the moments in the film may be, they still warrant a place within the arena of critical commentary simply through the understanding of their place within the realm of violent cinema. No haphazard bloodshed in the film is executed haphazardly, and every gruesome moment of self-indulgence is engineered to coerce the viewer into questioning his or her taste for the violence they’re observing.

Inglourious Basterds makes a statement about innate violence that is illustrated specifically enough and broadly enough, through text and subtext, to be explored through a variety of perspectives; yet, as with any literary work, conclusions drawn from these perspectives will be reached in drastically different ways. It is this ambiguity of stylistic choice and moral statement is the labyrinthine aspect of the film — and of the best films in general — that intertwines Basterds with literary material, solidifying its foundation as a piece of literature itself, and warrants its exploration through literary study on a level equal to any novel.

Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University

Press, 2000.

In any other film besides Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, actress Diane Kruger’s performance would have shined through and gotten her a great deal of attention in the public eye. Instead, the film is filled to the brim with great performances, and Kruger’s role as Bridget Von Hammersmark may get overlooked next to Brad Pitt’s Aldo Raine or Christoph Waltz’s Hans Landa.

Now, Kruger will be joining The Boat That Rocked (aka Pirate Radio) and Mad Men star January Jones in Dark Castle’s production of Unknown White Male.

According to Variety, the film centers around “a man (to be played by Liam Neeson) who awakens from a coma to find that someone else has assumed his identity, and no one, including his wife, believes him. With the help of a young woman, he sets out to prove who he is.” Jones is the wife in question; Kruger will be playing his new ally.

I loved Kruger in Inglourious Basterds, and it’s good to see that she’ll have a front and center role in this upcoming production. The script has been handled by Oliver Butcher and Stephen Cromwell, and directorial duties will be handed to Orphan‘s Jaume Collet-Serra.

Filming starts this coming January in Berlin, Germany.

Here’s the short and sweet Quentin Tarantino news of the past week: Inglourious Basterds’ wild success, both with audiences and critics, has given the director the breathing room to admit he wants to revisit Uma Thurman and the Kill Bill franchise. Two caveats:

1. (Spoiler) Bill is dead.

2. With the exception of Basterds, Tarantino yaks about movie ideas all the time without following through — The Vega Brothers is a great example.

However, according to Variety, QT not only confirmed that he would be making Kill Bill 3 at the Morelia Film Festival by the ten year anniversary of the second film in 2014. The juice is that he also talked about bridging that span of time with a possible “‘re-imagining’ of a number of genres including a Western or a 1920s to ’30s ‘Pretty Boy Floyd’ type gangster movie.”

Inglourious Basterds has proven that Tarantino has the ability to deftly marry his unique writing style to a period piece without resorting to idiocy. I’m all for a true blue Western, as he has long hinted his interest in the genre, particularly with a very interesting performance in Sukiyaki Western Django.

The great part about this is that if all really goes as planned, we’ll have two Tarantino films in the next five years.

For the second weekend in a row the Sony Pictures Animation hit Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs reigns at the top of the box office. Making up about 24.6 million during this September weekend, the children’s book turned feature edged its way past the competition. Facing three first week opening films, the audiences agreed that they preferred mountains of raining ice cream over horror, music and robots.

Falling onto a hard second place is the Bruce Willis science fiction film Surrogates. Suffering from mixed reviews and a strange yet some what confusing alternative present plot, not everyone flocked to the screenings. Taking in only 15 million, the eighty million dollar budget film has a long way to go until it reaches its goal. The same does not go for the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer remake of the 1980′s classic Fame. The modernized tale of a group of kids who go through a New York City school of performing arts took in 10 million, a reasonable profit for a low budget film.

The last of the newest releases is the science fiction thriller Pandorum which could not capture the attention of audiences when it brought in 4.4 million. The forty million dollar budget film, produced by Resident Evil series director Paul W.S. Anderson, failed to woo over critics and movie-goers alike.

Honorable mention goes to Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds which continues breaking the popular director’s box office total for a single film. The World War II fictional tale has a total so far of 114.4 million and still going strong. Here’s the rest of the totals below:

Weekend Box Office (September 25-27)

1. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs  ($24.6 Million)
2. Surrogates  ($15 Million)
3. Fame  ($10 Million)
4. The Informant!  ($6.9 Million)
5. Tyler Perry’s I Can Do Bad All By Myself  ($4.7 Million)
6. Pandorum  ($4.4 Million)
7. Love Happens  ($4.3 Million)
8. Jennifer’s Body  ($3.5 Million)
9. Shane Acker’s 9  ($2.8 Million)
10. Inglourious Basterds  ($2.7 Million)

The newest set of recent releases are the Drew Barrymore directed film Whip It, the horror comedy Zombieland, Ricky Gervais’ The Invention of Lying and the Coen brothers’ film A Serious Man.

A cannibalistic cheerleader could not rip away from the shreds of thick and juicy meatballs as Jennifer’s Body is toppled over by the Sony Pictures Animation comedy Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs. Bringing in the voice talents of Bill Hader, Anna Faris, Neil Patrick Harris, James Caan and others, the delectable feature brought in 30.1 million over its opening weekend. With the strongly positive word of mouth rising from the film, it will perform fine for weeks to come.

This is not the case for the hyped up Diablo Cody written horror comedy Jennifer’s Body. Ripping in only 6.8 million on it’s opening, the Megan Fox vehicle is already speeding right into a ditch. Movie reviews that have come out recently, including our own from Atomic Popcorn, have mainly panned the film leading up to a some what poisonous word of mouth.

Steven Soderbergh’s directed dramedy The Informant! caught some people’s attention when it brought in 10.5 million. The romantic drama Love Happens swirled into the scene bringing in 8.4 million, despite the supposed ‘sweetheart’ Jennifer Aniston co-starring alongside Aaron Eckhart.

What became the biggest of the headlines for this weekend’s box office is none other than Quentin Tarantino’s World War II film Inglourious Basterds. The famous director made his own box office feat when Basterds trumped over his 1994 hit Pulp Fiction. Inglourious Basterds has taken in about 109 million domestically so far, beating the record previously held up by Pulp Fiction’s 107 million dollar domestic gross.

“We have been Quentin’s biggest fans since the beginning. It was extremely gratifying to see ‘Inglourious Basterds’ put up such huge numbers. It is a kick ass film from a director who always keeps me and audiences on their toes,” says Harvey Weinstein in response to the new benchmark. The Weinstein Company will continue introducing new films to the general public this year, including Rob Marshall’s “Nine” and John Hillcoat’s “The Road”.

Take a look below at the top ten of this weekend’s box office:

Weekend Box Office (September 18-20)

1. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs  ($30.1 Million)
2. The Informant!   ($10.5 Million)
3. Tyler Perry’s I Can Do Bad All By Myself  ($10 Million)
4. Love Happens  ($8.4 Million)
5. Jennifer’s Body  ($6.8 Million)
6. Shane Acker’s 9  ($5.4 Million)
7. Inglourious Basterds  ($3.6 Million)
8. All About Steve  ($3.4 Million)
9. Sorority Row  ($2.4 Million)
10. The Final Destination  ($2.3 Million)

It’s time to get ready for another fresh batch of movies this upcoming weekend. Among them are Coco Before Chanel, Blind Date, Paranormal Activity, Fame, Pandorum, I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell, Surrogates and The Boys Are Back.