“It often seems that when there isn’t an obvious, populist pick in the Academy’s documentary feature category (such as Bowling for Columbine, March of the Penguins or An Inconvenient Truth), the field is rife for an upset,” points out Kris Tapley. This may, he suggests, be evidence enough that James Marsh’s Man on Wire, the presumed frontrunner in the Oscar Best Documentary category, is vulnerable to an upset. That makes sense. Slightly more aggravating: the substance behind Tapley’s suggestion that Wire doesn’t deserve to win.

“Having finally viewed all of the nominees, I can’t deny how impactful each of the other contenders is,” Tapley writes. “Furthermore, James Marsh’s film is largely composed of talking head interviews and pre-existing footage, not to mention dubious reenactments. Each of the other contenders, meanwhile, are the result of original filmmaking.”

I agree that Encounters at the End of the World and The Betrayal are qualitatively more interesting films (I haven’t seen The Garden). My questions: what is it about Trouble the Water’s handicam verite that qualifies as the more “original filmmaking”, and what qualifies the reenactments in Wire –– which I thought were subtle, artful, and necessary –– as “dubious”?

“Dubious” is a word that Tapley uses a lot. Remembering that he used it to describe my review of Dear Zachary, I did a search for “dubious” on his site, and saw that the phrase “dubious reenactments” also popped up in his review of the Oscar shortlisted film Blessed is the Match. So now I’m wondering if that word means what I think it means.

In any case, I’ve lost my share of Oscar pools thanks to surprises in the Best Documentary category, so I’m on board with the concept that Man on Wire may not be a safe bet. And as much respect as that film deserves, I’d rather see Werner Herzog win, not just for the brilliance of Encounters, but for his entire nonfiction filmmaking career.