Contrary to the conventional perception that the interaction between cataphora (forward reference) and anaphora (backward reference) acts as a reductive, monophonic interpretation of the causal coherence of a narrative, the issue addressed in this article is that this does not necessarily have to be the case. That is, the closure of an open mentality and voluntary thinking in film narrative, and the reliance on limited causal options, is not the only inevitable context, even with the justification of the audience’s understanding of the film and the strong need for narrative closure. This discussion draws on the views of experts in the field of cognitive film analysis, such as David Bordwell and Nitzan Ben-Shaul. The research method is descriptive-analytical, with data collection and sample analysis conducted through a library approach and direct examination of texts. Evidence suggests that, although in narrative films (such as The Sixth Sense and Ghost Writer), the interaction between cataphora and anaphora is often used to cultivate a closed mentality, aiming to limit the range of institutionalized options and create the sense that the chain of events is predetermined and could never have followed a different path, the research findings in a case like Rashomon show that this strategy can also lead to narrative twists. This occurs when ambiguous or random initial cataphoric cues are retrospectively and explicitly called back in an anaphoric manner and causally reinterpreted, serving as a manifestation of an open mentality.