Being that we are a site that values and relies on film critics, we were intrigued to hear that you studied under one of the most celebrated living American critics, Andrew Sarris. Can you tell us more about that?

Kathryn Bigelow: It was a track that I thought was really interesting -- it was called Scholarship Criticism, and what it did was it kept contextualizing films and historicizing them. I had already shot some 16 mm films, not that I felt I had a command of the medium technically, but I had a better understanding of it and I was really hungry and curious for an opportunity to look at it from a more historical and contextual standpoint. Andrew Sarris, Peter Wollen... I also had some incredible teachers in the Philosophy Department, Sylvere Lotringer and Marshall Blonsky, who I both used in my first film, Set-Up, as commentators, and embedded their commentary into the text of the piece. So it really was an opportunity to look at film in a more analytical way, as opposed to just a mechanical way.

What was it about Mark Boal's screenplay idea that made you decide that The Hurt Locker was the next project you wanted to make?

KB: I'm definitely drawn to artistically challenging material, and I predominantly make choices, and have always made them, identically, which is instinctually. But the opportunity to take advantage of Mark [Boal]'s embed and his firsthand observations, and to look at a particular conflict that's fairly underreported and have a granular, visceral, immediate, boots-on-the-ground, you are there, fly on the wall approach, was a great opportunity.

Was there an issue of time sensitivity in making The Hurt Locker, considering that Mark's experience in Iraq had been a few years prior?

KB: You know, it's interesting. I suppose, yes, in that it remains a very topical and relevant subject, but it was really a function of Mark crafting a very compelling script, that when I kind of submitted it into the independent financing community, it was met with a very receptive response. And then, the opportunity to shoot in the Middle East, and keep creative control and final cut, and the opportunity to cast emerging talent, those were all parameters that set into the realization of the piece. It gained a kind of life and steam of its own. But I think the relevancy underscored it.

Even years after Mark's experiences, the story you tell remains timely -- especially in introducing this little-covered sub group of military life, the EOD bomb squad units.

KB: It is the primary weapon of the insurgency, and I think we use terms like "roadside bomber" and "IED" [improvised explosive device] with, perhaps unless you've had a tour of duty or spent time over there, less information than we should have. I think it's really pretty critical and vital information.

Many viewers have called The Hurt Locker an apolitical war film, in that it doesn't overtly take a stance either in support or opposition to the war. Do you agree, or do you prefer to leave it to the audience?

KB: You know, I refer to it as nonpartisan. There's a quote that Mark used to use: "There's no politics in the trenches." When he was on his embed, people were not speaking about left, right, and center; they were trying to survive. So I think finally, that becomes the overriding sentiment in that survival, not only personal survival, but saving the lives of thousands of individuals -- that's what these bomb techs are doing every day. I think what his script did so successfully was humanize the guys on the ground, humanize the soldiers. Regardless of how you feel about the conflict, it's an opportunity to look at the humanity of these men -- the heroism, the courage, and also the price of that heroism.

Do you feel that there's an increasing responsibility on the part of artists, or at least an inclination, to convey what's happening in the world when mainstream media fails to inform?

KB: Yes, I think that's vital to the medium -- in this case, being film -- but remaining artful does allow an opportunity to be experiential, to take you to a place that may or may not be too dangerous to experience, yet a kind of granular understanding of that place is extremely important to us as human beings. I totally agree. But that's where I think you can combine entertainment and substance. The film  obviously can be quite entertaining, but it also provides that substantive, granular look at a day in the life of an individual who has the most dangerous job in the world. When Mark came back from the embed and told me what a day in the embed was like, and not only that, but that these men volunteer for it so they're there by choice... it just provided this extraordinary psychology that, again, the general public may not be aware of or understand in a palpable way.

Watch clips from The Hurt Locker: