What 'Couples Therapy' with Dr. Orna Guralnik Gets Right (reflections from a convert who is also a couples therapist)
And by the way, it gets a lot right.
I resisted watching Couples Therapy for awhile until one of my closest and most trusted colleagues insisted I give it a chance. The premise struck me as a professional hazard dressed up as entertainment: a psychoanalyst, Dr. Orna Guralnik, sees real couples in her Manhattan office while cameras run. My first reaction wasn't curiosity, it was something closer to protectiveness or resistance — for the couples, or maybe I was being a stick in the mud.
Confidentiality is the secret sauce of this work, not a nicety bolted onto it — it's the condition that makes the work possible. People say things in a consulting room they have never said anywhere else, precisely because the room is sealed. A camera in the corner changes the physics of that room, no matter how skilled the therapist or how thoughtful the production.
And then there's consent, which is trickier than it looks on the release form. Can a person in the middle of a marital crisis, motivated in part by the crisis itself, really weigh what they're agreeing to when they sign up to have their sessions filmed and eventually broadcast? Guralnik herself has been candid about this in interviews — she describes the ethical questions as live ones, not settled ones, and has talked about how being filmed changes what happens in the room even when everyone is behaving in good faith. I appreciated that she wasn't pretending the problem away. But appreciating the honesty of the disclaimer isn't the same as being comfortable with the premise.
I watched anyway, eventually, mostly out of professional nosiness. And I came around completely. I'm a fan now, not a reluctant one — not because the ethical questions resolved themselves, but because I think the show is doing something the public badly needs and almost never gets: showing people what depth-oriented couples work actually looks like, as distinct from what most people assume "couples therapy" means.
Who she is and how she works
Guralnik is a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst, on faculty in the NYU postdoctoral program in psychoanalysis, with a longstanding interest in dissociation, culture, and the ways ideology shows up inside a couple's private life. None of that is incidental to what you see on screen. The show is at its best when it lets you watch her hold a psychodynamic frame under conditions that are actively working against it — a couple who wants advice, a runtime that wants resolution, an audience trained by other genres to expect a verdict. She mostly declines to give one. She tracks affect, she waits, she says the uncomfortable thing about the marriage's function rather than its content. That's recognizably the work.
What convinced me more than anything else was seeing her consultation practice depicted at all. The show includes her weekly case discussions with a trusted colleague — a structure familiar to anyone in this field, and one that television usually has no interest in, because it's slow and it isn't about her. Consultation isn't a backstage extra for depth-oriented work; it's part of the treatment. You cannot think well about a couple's unconscious contract alone in a room, especially not while you're inside the transference with them. I hold weekly individual consultation and a weekly group consultation with my associates for exactly this reason, and it was strangely validating to see that habit treated as worth showing rather than cut for time.
Guralnik has also taken this conversation directly to a UK training audience — Tavistock Relationships has hosted her more than once, including a session where she and her own peer supervision group presented cases from the show and opened them up for discussion, with real attention to how culture, race, and religion move inside a couple's dynamic and inside the therapist's own countertransference. That's a different register than the broadcast version: slower, more explicitly theoretical, aimed at clinicians rather than viewers. Watching both versions side by side tells you something about what gets kept and what gets sanded off for a general audience.
What it teaches the public
Most people arrive at the idea of "couples therapy" through pop psychology: communication skills, active listening, learning to fight fairer. Those things matter, but they're not the whole of the work, and they're not what's usually driving the trouble in the first place. What the show puts on screen, again and again, is a couple's difficulty tracked back to something underneath the argument about dishes or sex or money — an old attachment injury, a role one partner is unconsciously assigned, a piece of family history repeating itself in a new marriage. That's a genuinely different claim about what therapy is for than the one most viewers walk in with, and I think it's the single most valuable thing the show does. It doesn't just dramatize a fight and a repair; it gives the public a model of a mind — the couple's, and the therapist's — worth taking seriously, and it does that at a scale no clinician's individual practice could ever reach.
The heavy lifting, and its limits
The moments I find most impressive are the pivots — when she's tracking one thread with a couple and something shifts, and she has to decide in real time whether to follow the shift or hold the original line. That's the actual skill of this work, and it's largely invisible even to trained clinicians unless you've done it yourself under supervision. Watching her do it under a camera, with editors and a season arc waiting on the other side of the session, is a genuinely different kind of difficult than doing it in private practice, and I don't think the show gets enough credit for how exposed that makes her.
I also don't want to overstate what the show is. Forty-five minutes of edited footage per couple across a season is not a course of treatment, and the narrative shape of television — problem, complication, some movement toward insight — is not how change usually happens in a couple's life, which is slower, more circular, and less visually interesting. The show simplifies. It has to. What I've landed on is that the simplification is in the edit, not in her technique, and that's a distinction worth holding onto if you're a clinician watching this alongside your own supervision group rather than as television.
None of that resolves the thing I started with. I still feel protective of the people on that show — the couples and individuals who agreed to have some of their most exposed material aired to strangers. Being won over on the clinical merits didn't retire the discomfort about the premise; the two just sit next to each other now. I don't think that's a flaw in my thinking about the show. I think it's the correct response to it.
There's one more thing the show gets right, and it's easy to miss because it isn't stated outright: the arc it offers isn't a promise that things work out. Some of these couples look close to hopeless in the early sessions — entrenched, exhausted, talking past each other in ways that seem almost rehearsed. What the show tracks honestly is a process, not an outcome, and the process sometimes leads a couple back toward each other and sometimes leads them apart, with the ending in either direction treated as a legitimate result of the work rather than a failure to be softened. That's true to the actual practice. Depth-oriented couples therapy isn't in the business of keeping people together; it's in the business of helping two people see clearly enough to choose, whichever way that choice goes.
Continue Exploring
Curious about how a different modality might fit into your own therapy — or want to talk through what an integrated approach could look like for you?
Explore more posts in this series on our blog, or book an intake to start a conversation with one of our clinicians. You can also reach us directly at 416.925.7544 or connect@drmauraferguson.com..
Comments