I don't get it!

yeah, from the distance - it is boring movie, sad and depressing, a lot of yelling and screaming - and I hate these themes in today's movies, especially european "independent" etc...I find it unwatchable.

however,I gave it here on imdb 10/10 and this is why:
as a kid, I remember yugoslav Tv showed it and I remember my relatives commented it, I don't remember what they said, I didn't know what's movie about but for some reason the movie stuck in my mind - i remember it as B/W movie in which Liz is yelling all the time.

in my 20ties, I went through phases of depression and there is one line that Liz says that really touched me, it went something like this: "You go through life pretending that everything is fine and one day, one night you snap!, something happens and you just don't give a damn anymore"
I also liked dialogues about suicide. I loved supporting actress, I liked her for some reason. Movie just grew to my heart for some reason, I can't explain it. I liked the setting - informal social gathering, outside shots, going to the pub, ongoing anger and yelling in between - it was like at my home with my parents.

in my 30ties I read articles about this movie and I looked it through historical point as you mentioned it - the movie was created on the book and play - that at the time were both a breakthrough. as a movie it was shocking to see Liz old and bitter - as oppose to the most beautiful woman after playing cleopatra just a couple years before. Life magazine put her picture from "who's afraid.." and place title SHOCKING at the front - due to Liz physical change. I didn't understand why Life mag put shocking over Liz face - and I forgot that this picture is what I always saw of Liz -in 1990s, so it wasn't shocking to me! Back in those time she was top model not old gray woman. Movie also was a breakthtough from censurship due to curse words and implied unmarital sex. These movie revolutions amaze me, how hollywood directors at those times dared to break limits step by step.

That's why I like this movie so much - it is sincere, genuine, it has a soul.

edunn91:

Agree totally. Taylor was paid a pair of diamond and
ruby earrings, 1.1 million USD plus 10% of the gross and she wanted more!

Her take on "Cleopatra" was 7 million USD, as it was written into her contract for production delays. Oddly, mostly do to her fault. Scenes had to be reshot with her weight changes, etc..

Aw, man. It's not really that big of a deal. You can easily dislike this film by trying to figure it out too much (says I, a former actor and writer).
This film is, simply, a classic, but it's hard to get that if you did not live during this particular time.

Too much screaming, yelling, and drinking? That's, frankly, America - circa the 1950s and 1960s, especially in the academic community. Horrible marriages, substance abuse, and sexual hang-ups (not to MENTION hidden, hurtful, family secrets) defined our country following the War. Rather than try to "like" it, view it as a super accurate snapshot of a certain slice of America that was examined a lot back then. That's why so many "filmed plays" were made at this time, since most of Hollywood in the first half of the 20th century was neither literate, nor a true reflection of America.

So don't try to "like" this film, because you can't "like" it - it still makes me nauseous at points. Instead, view it as the literary work it is, and it's a fine one. Just LISTEN to (or better yet, read) the words being communicated in this film/play. This is awesome, brilliant writing. And the acting was out of this world. Brilliant, actually. Sure, I'll watch MGM musicals and episodes of Seinfeld, and Disney flicks. That's food for my heart. This, truly intellectually amazing stuff, is food for my brain.

[deleted]

Its over 2 hours of drinking, screaming and over the top acting about there sad and depressing lives.

Yes, I didn't get it either when I first saw it.
I think that brtndr Wed Jan 30 2013 13:08:18 explained it fairly well.

When I saw it I asked a friend of mine for an interpretation of it. Not everyone gets it straight away and I think she has the best explanation of what the film is about.
I have pasted it here word for word as I could not put it any better.
(It also has spoilers so if anyone has not watched the film...)

Richard is passive aggressive. When he was first in love with Elizabeth, it was booze and fun and he liked that she was strong willed.

Years later, he finds home life oppressive as Elizabeth dominates everything and belittles him for not being as good as she imagined he would be. She refers to this when she said that once, daddy had imagined he would become head of the dept, but that has never occurred. She spends most of her time telling him he is a loser, but she is equally as trapped as he is. If she really wanted to be in a better position, she would leave him and marry someone else. The reality is that she is dependent on him and knows deep down that she is just a big a loser. (she's an alcoholic)

To a degree, Richard knows this, so he has, in his passive way, felt that he really has the upper hand, because he is the sober one, and the one who will "look after the family no matter what". But of course, he is fooling himself, he has as little control over their relationship as she does.

Elizabeth has a habit of make-believe to make her life seem better. Richard has allowed her to do this, the way a parent might put up with their kid's 'imaginary friend' business. Elizabeth has created a "son" and each year they celebrate his birthday etc. In this make believe son, Elizabeth makes him achieve everything she hoped for for herself and Richard. The son is better than Richard (which she happily tells Richard to further crush him) but more importantly, the son has also done everything that she once thought she would do. He has embodied her dashed hopes and dreams that she hasn't got the guts to pursue.

(sorry, I forget their movie names...)

All of this has been going along for some time. Richard has probably wanted to pull the pin many times but never worked up the nerve. When Honey and whatshisname appear (they get invited along to the home because they are new on campus), Elizabeth involves them in some mindgames that drives Richard mad - that is, she overstepped the boundaries because Richard doesn't mind her taking her anger out on him, but it is unacceptable to him that she is now abusing some strangers.

Honey discovers that the "son" is made up, and unwillingly she becomes Richard's pawn - Richard uses her to make Elizabeth 's son's death non-negotiable. Without Honey, Elizabeth would have just talked Richard out of it and they would have continued making up stories about what the son was doing the day after. It's two against one.

After the guests leave, Elizabeth is reduced to an equal. She realises that she can no longer pretend she is any better than her husband, and realises that she cannot threaten that she might leave him - afterall, they both depend on each other the same way.

I hope this clears up what the film is about.

I enjoyed the first 45 minutes, but once they leave the house it becomes exactly what the OP described. It also winds up being sentimental at the end.

Many people also like to see a train wreck, which is why reality TV has become so popular with all the drama created. It makes them feel better about themselves.