For me something which may be significant (or maybe not): <and also something of a spoiler in terms of giving away the trajectory of the film>
Considering the big final performance, when Portman's character finally lets go and allows the black swan anima to consume her body and soul: how significant is it that the director and / or producers felt that the only way to represent a truly show-stopping, audience wowing ballet performance was to use CGI to enhance it?
I sense that people tend to clap enthusiastically at world class ballet houses no matter what - partly because, to those companies' credit, the quality of the dancing is such that even those new to it can see the dedication and skill it must take; partly because those new to it (like me) don't really know what constitutes really good ballet; and finally, partly out of a rather forced sense of social obligation.
But was there once a time when the dancers' actions alone was the special effect, and audiences genuinely couldn't help but give ovation after ovation? Alice Homan's history Apollo's Angels is suggesting to me that there was. Aronofsky's film's use of technology to enhance the performance may support Homan's final assertion that ballet is slowly losing its place in the hearts and minds of contemporary (mass) audiences. Conversely, the success of the film and the interest it's generating may point towards a new way ballet can work: somewhere in the conjunction of technology and performance (something Wayne McGregor's ballets often point towards).
However, this may just go back to SandyMcKean's point 2., above - Portman obviously cannot be expected to deliver the kind of prima ballerina magic that could be believed to have brought the house down. Hence, CGI.
