The False Self on the Silver Screen: How Hollywood Lost Its Way in Winnicott's Playground
The False Self on the Silver Screen: How Hollywood Lost Its Way in Winnicott's Playground
Media and entertainment team up to bring you the worst edible garbage you've seen in years, and the critics smother it in fake reviews. A veritable crap sandwich.
Editorial Note: Zachary McClanahan is a second-year PhD student researching political ideology and dark triad traits. He has noticed an even higher than normal rise of narcissism within filmmaking and game development. While this phenomenon is not new in entertainment, the refusal to accept blame for creative failures is a more recent and troubling trend. Drawing inspiration from my insights on Donald Winnicott’s work, this piece delves into how modern creators seem to lack the developmental capacity for constructive self-reflection, echoing Winnicott’s view on the importance of facing criticism for healthy psychological and cultural growth.
The controversy surrounding The Rings of Power premiere highlights a troubling trend in the entertainment industry. When faced with overwhelming negative feedback, Amazon, the series' producer, suppressed public ratings and claimed "review bombing." This reaction exemplifies how studios increasingly shield themselves from criticism rather than engaging in necessary self-reflection. Donald Winnicott's psychoanalytic theory emphasizes the importance of creative engagement with the world for psychological development. Amazon's response demonstrates a failure to navigate this process, severing vital dialogue between creators and audience by suppressing reviews and allegedly purging negative feedback from IMDb, which they own.
This approach mirrors Winnicott's concept of a false self, where authenticity is sacrificed for a constructed image of success. When this space is artificially controlled, it hinders both personal and cultural growth. Dismissing valid critiques as "trolling" creates a distorted reality where artistic work is insulated from genuine feedback. The suppression of criticism has extended into professional reviews as well, with critics potentially feeling pressured to offer favorable reviews of big-budget productions in a challenging media landscape. This widens the gap between professional critiques and general audience opinions, depriving both creators and viewers of authentic connection and understanding.
Winnicott argued that growth arises from playing with reality, testing boundaries, and integrating external feedback. When studios and critics shy away from this interaction, it fosters cynicism toward both user-generated and professional reviews. The industry's prioritization of self-protection over self-improvement leaves viewers questioning where to find honest perspectives. The consequences of failing to accept legitimate criticism are tangible: The Rings of Power's second season suffered a massive drop in viewership, an inevitable outcome of disregarding audience feedback and reality. This case serves as a cautionary tale for the industry, illustrating the importance of embracing criticism for genuine artistic and cultural development.
Disconnect Between Showrunners and Audience
Recent high-profile productions have highlighted a growing disconnect between showrunners and their audiences. Creators increasingly prioritize external benchmarks over compelling storytelling, resulting in characters and narratives that feel forced or detached from the original story's essence. This shift frustrates audiences, who feel their beloved franchises are being altered for reasons beyond narrative quality. Many showrunners now focus on meeting rigid demographic targets, sometimes to the point where even actors from underrepresented groups face criticism if they don't perfectly align with certain expectations. This approach, prioritizing surface-level representation over authentic narrative experiences and nuanced character development, often leaves audiences feeling alienated and questioning the sincerity of these creative decisions
In Winnicott's framework, this situation represents a failure in the transitional space between creativity and audience engagement. Showrunners struggle to balance their internal vision with external pressures and audience expectations. This imbalance mirrors the "false self" concept. Various benchmarks, from social media buzz to strict casting criteria, increasingly dictate content direction, often at the expense of fundamental storytelling elements. When creators lose touch with their audience's emotional and imaginative needs, they risk stifling the creativity and spontaneity crucial for meaningful engagement.
A troubling trend is showrunners disregarding or reinterpreting established source material. The Halo series adaptation exemplifies this approach, where creators reportedly didn’t play the original game. This resulted in a show that felt disconnected from its roots, alienating long-time fans and ultimately leading to its cancellation after two seasons. Such decisions represent a breakdown in the "holding environment" that stories create for their audiences. The resulting self-censorship and creative compromise often produce content lacking the depth and complexity audiences crave. Despite claims of progress, this entertainment landscape often lacks substance and emotional truth, leaving audiences searching for authenticity.
Defending Streaming Piles of Garbage
(But You’re a Racist for Not Liking My Garbage)
The relationship between critics, content creators, and audiences has become increasingly strained, mirroring what Winnicott might describe as a breakdown in the "holding environment" of entertainment discourse. The reception and subsequent cancellation of The Acolyte, a Star Wars spinoff series, exemplifies this dysfunction. Instead of addressing criticisms about the show's writing and departure from source material, some reviewers and actors, including Amandla Stenberg, deflected by framing the show's failure as a result of fan base bigotry. Of course, every show now has a diverse cast, so any show can claim victimhood. This narrative shift, echoed in publications like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, represents a failure in what Winnicott would call the "transitional space" between creators and audience, where honest dialogue should occur.
This tendency to push defensive narratives rather than offer substantive critique points to a deeper issue within the industry another instance of "false self." Some critics and reviewers appear more intent on shielding certain productions from criticism, regardless of the validity of audience concerns. For instance, Forbes published an article seemingly pressuring Disney to produce another season of The Acolyte, despite its lackluster (To be polite) reception. This approach not only undermines the credibility of entertainment journalism but also fails to provide the "good enough" environment that Winnicott argued was necessary for genuine growth and development.
The manipulation of public opinion extends further with the alleged use of astroturfing tactics, as seen in discussions surrounding Star Wars: Outlaws. This strategy of framing any negative reception as prejudice without substantial evidence serves to deflect attention from potential shortcomings, creating what Winnicott might call an "impingement" on the audience's ability to engage authentically with the work. By creating an illusion of widespread support and casting critics as prejudiced, these tactics risk stifling the "play" that Winnicott saw as crucial for engaging with reality. This approach not only misrepresents audience reactions but also undermines the integrity of the review process, leaving consumers in a state of what Winnicott might term "false integration," where their genuine responses are invalidated in favor of a constructed narrative.
The Narcissistic Underpinnings of Criticism Suppression
The entertainment industry's recent trend of silencing criticism reveals a disturbing parallel to what Winnicott would describe as the development of a pervasive "false self" among creators and executives. This false self, manifesting as an extreme sensitivity to critique, goes beyond mere self-confidence; it represents a defensive facade that shields the vulnerable "true self" from perceived attacks. In Winnicott's framework, this dynamic emerges when the "holding environment" - in this case, the industry ecosystem - fails to provide the necessary support for healthy creative development.
This false self triggers what Winnicott termed "impingement" - a disruption of authentic development that forces reactive behaviors. Instead of engaging with feedback constructively, industry figures often resort to "splitting" - a defense mechanism where critics are vilified as "haters" or "trolls," while sycophants are idealized. This polarization destroys the "good enough environment" that Winnicott saw as crucial for genuine growth, making nuanced discussion impossible and stifling potential improvement.
The impact of this false self extends far beyond individual interactions, shaping the very structure of content creation and distribution. In Winnicott's terms, it represents a failure of the "transitional space" where creativity and reality should productively interact. This manifests in several ways:
Narrative Manipulation: Stories become vehicles for reinforcing the false self rather than exploring the human condition, lacking the authenticity Winnicott valued.
Feedback Aversion: The implementation of systems to filter or suppress negative responses creates an artificial "holding environment" that fails to provide the necessary challenges for growth.
Critical Co-optation: The changing relationship with professional critics represents a corruption of the transitional space, where honest feedback is sacrificed for ego protection.
Rewriting Reality: Attempts to reframe failures reflect a breakdown in what Winnicott called "reality testing," essential for mature engagement with the world.
As this false self culture becomes entrenched, it creates a self-perpetuating cycle that Winnicott would view as deeply problematic for creative and psychological health. Young creators learn to prioritize the false self over authentic expression, critics lose their role in facilitating healthy "reality testing," and audiences find themselves alienated from an industry that has lost touch with genuine "play" - the spontaneous, creative engagement Winnicott saw as crucial for both art and life.
The long-term consequences of this trend are potentially devastating from a Winnicottian perspective. The growing disconnect between creators and audiences represents a fundamental breakdown in the transitional space necessary for meaningful artistic exchange. Innovation stagnates in an environment devoid of the "play" Winnicott saw as essential for creativity. Ultimately, the art of storytelling itself is diminished, reduced from a powerful tool for exploring the human experience to a mere vehicle for maintaining the false self, losing the very authenticity and aliveness that Winnicott believed was at the core of healthy human experience and expression.
Bribes as Far as the Hand Can Reach
Media reviews have come under increasing scrutiny as the line between authentic critique and paid promotion continues to marble into the critical landscape the "false self." A prime example of this troubling trend is the recent promotion of Star Wars: Outlaws, where Ubisoft and Disney reportedly flew previewers to Disneyland. This lavish approach to generating positive coverage raises serious questions about the objectivity of resulting reviews. Such practices, which essentially amount to thinly veiled bribery, severely undermine the trust between audiences and reviewers - a crucial "holding environment". As exposed in a revealing Wired article, this erosion of journalistic integrity isn't limited to the gaming industry but permeates reviews of books, movies, and consumer electronics. With the decline of traditional revenue sources, many critics find themselves increasingly vulnerable to financial inducements disguised as exclusive press events or early access opportunities, forcing them into a "false self" mode of operation.
The ramifications of this compromised review system extend far beyond individual products, creating what Winnicott would describe as a "not good enough environment" for healthy media criticism. Media companies, seemingly more concerned with protecting their fragile egos than facing honest critique, appear all too willing to manufacture positive coverage. This approach not only shields them from genuine feedback but also creates a false narrative around products that may not deserve such acclaim. The growing commercialization of criticism reveals a troubling prioritization of financial interests over journalistic integrity, disrupting the "transitional space" where reality and creativity should interact. As a result, honest voices are often silenced or drowned out, leaving consumers to navigate a sea of potentially biased reviews. This systematic manipulation of public opinion not only deceives audiences but also stifles the kind of authentic, constructive criticism necessary for the improvement and evolution of media products, ultimately eroding the trust that should exist between critics, creators, and consumers - a breakdown of what Winnicott would call the "facilitating environment" necessary for genuine growth and creativity.
A New Hope Forward
A rebellion that demands integrity in media criticism is essential for creating what Winnicott called a "good enough environment" for the health of the entertainment industry. This path forward requires a multifaceted approach, starting with media companies embracing transparency and actively encouraging honest feedback - fostering a "holding environment" that allows for genuine growth. Critics must be empowered to speak truth without fear of reprisal or financial coercion, the "true self" expression. Educational institutions training future filmmakers and critics have a crucial role to play in developing this environment, instilling respect for source material and nurturing a genuine desire for improvement. By rewarding honesty over conformity, media companies could demonstrate a commitment to growth and adaptation, transforming the critical landscape into one that values constructive feedback over hollow praise, thus creating the "facilitating environment" Winnicott saw as crucial for authentic development.
In our increasingly digital and skeptical age, authenticity is becoming the new currency of trust, aligning with Winnicott's emphasis on genuine self-expression. Independent platforms that allow critics to be directly supported by audiences, rather than relying on corporate sponsorships, offer a promising model for a more trustworthy review ecosystem - one that better supports the "transitional space" where creators, critics, and audiences can interact authentically. By fostering open dialogue, embracing diverse opinions, and moving away from artificially inflated praise, both reviewers and creators can begin to rebuild eroded trust. Alternatively, the rise of audience reviews and AI summaries of game strengths and weaknesses presents an intriguing shift in the critical landscape. Much like community notes on social media platforms have challenged the need for traditional fact-checkers, this democratization of criticism raises questions about the continued relevance of professional reviewers. This evolution might represent a new form of the "good enough environment" Winnicott described, one where authentic audience experiences take center stage in shaping our understanding and appreciation of media.
As Dr. Haltigan expressed to me concisely:
“Play must be connected to actual reality in some way. For a culture to exist in a healthy state, play has to be connected to the shared values that reflect that culture. Media should treat imaginative play and fantasy with this in mind. Hence fairy tales etc. Once you pervert those, cultural health is degraded.”
