One of characteristic marks of classical narrative films is that their audio/visual is, in a certain sense, transparent.1 Very roughly, this means that (1) most of shots in these movies are understood as providing audience with or intersubjectively accessible views of fictional characters, actions, and situations depicted in film and that (2) where shots or are not to be construed as objective, there is a reasonably clear marking of fact that they are, in one of several different ways, subjective. Of course, shots and sequences come in various modes. For instance, some shots and depict perceptual field of a particular character. Others depict a character's visual imaginings, memories, dreams, or hallucinations. Still others render in visual terms content of something that some character is verbally reporting or describing. This short list of possibilities is obviously not exhaustive, and individual modes deserve lengthier discussion. Nevertheless, let us say that (1) and (2) give us, as a crude first approximation, a specification of norm of the transparency of narration in classical narrative film. Although conception that these conditions jointly express has a recognizable intuitive import, it is not easy to elaborate conception more sharply. The concept of an objective shot or sequence in fiction films is problematic and, correlatively, so are various concepts of subjective depiction. Moreover, nature and functioning of factors that contextually mark epistemic status of a movie segment (that is, a shot or edited sequence) can be surprisingly elusive. These are among issues I will address in this essay. However, my investigation is not simply motivated by an untrammeled analytic impulse. I have been struck by fact that there are a number of fairly recent mainstream, commercial films-films that present an elaborate, detailed, and more or less coherent narrativethat depend on surprising, systematic violations of narrational transparency. The in films I have in mind is significantly unreliable in particular ways, and its unreliability depends precisely on audience's confounded expectation that norm of narrational transparency will have been in place. These movies have come to be known as movies, where twist in question is predominately epistemological. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Robert Wiene, 1919) is a celebrated early example of strategy, and there have been scattered instances throughout history of film. But lately we have enjoyed (or deplored) a positive explosion of epistemically twisted movies. The films I am thinking of come in at least two broad kinds. First, there are movies in which cinematic narration, as audience eventually comes to realize, represents narrative action through subjective perspective of a particular character, although, in general, that action has not been represented from perceptual point of view of character in question. That is, stands outside focalizing character, regularly presenting him or her within frame. Still, at same time, reflects problematic way in which character imagines relevant fictional history to have transpired. Jacob's Ladder (Adriane Lyne, 1990) is one example of this strategy, appearing early in recent cycle. David Fincher' s Fight Club (1999) and framed core story of Secret Window (David Koepp, 2004) are