A character can speak convincingly while giving an incomplete or distorted account. Unreliability does not always mean deliberate deception. Memory may be patchy, judgement self-serving or observation simply limited. A useful question while watching is therefore straightforward: who supplies this information, and what confirmation have we actually received?
A statement is not yet evidence
Suppose a narrator claims to have met nobody at the station. Later, an image shows that person in conversation. There is initially a contradiction. Whether the person lied, whether the timing is correct or whether the image represents an imagined event requires further context. A single discrepancy does not provide a complete explanation.
Notice whether a scene is introduced as a memory, an account or present action. Something visibly dramatised may still belong to a character's perspective. This does not require blanket distrust of every image. It simply means considering the context before treating the scene as independent confirmation of what somebody says.
Compare accounts rather than choosing immediately
Rashomon is a familiar example of an event presented through conflicting perspectives; the BFI catalogue specifically highlights this construction. For your own viewing, one useful method follows: compare not only what each account claims but also the role the speaker assigns to themselves within it.
In an invented example, two people might describe the same argument. Both remember a chair falling over, but each says the other person started the dispute. The shared object offers a possible point of agreement while responsibility remains contested. Accepting an entire version because one detail matches the other would be premature.
Distinguish deception from limited knowledge
A character who could not know something is not automatically dishonest. Ask whether they acknowledge uncertainty, turn an observation into a guess or claim certainty without sufficient support. These distinctions affect how a statement should be judged. An honest observation can lead to an incorrect conclusion as well as a correct one.
After the film, precise formulations help: this claim is contradicted later; this memory remains unconfirmed; these two details do not fit together. Such descriptions are more useful than a sweeping verdict on the character. If the film supplies no final resolution, the conversation can also retain several possibilities. What matters is identifying which scene supports each reading, and recognising where a compelling explanation still depends on an assumption.