I'll post.
"what the film makers wanted to show us." Well, I approached this movie (& I'm still trying not to post spoilers) totally discounting the external features of the art and theater of ballet---that would be: The extreme beauty of it all, music and performance, costuming and scenery. I expected, as I said in my original post/"review" (who am I to review?!1), that the horrible expectations that are put upon the dancers of this particular genre regarding weight, appearance, and physical torture and competition would be a given, a given being automaticaly assumed. Relegated OUT.
But this other o.p. about the 250,000 crystals is sort of more generic: That is, the DETAILS that movie makers take pains to include. With yards of film (do they still use film?!1) flashing by, WHO would be paying attention to much of the "beauty" of the costumes and scenery in a film like this when horrific falling-apart is happening to a character or two?!1
I said that I had STARTED OUT with discounting the "beauty" of ballet and all its external components---all of the costumes, the make-up, the stage decoration, everything---as IMMATERIAL to the character's falling apart.
As for the film makers wanting to give us a contrast, uh, like, who doesn't already realize this contrast between the external beauty of the ballet and the torture the dancers endure?!1 What we are looking at is this ONE character's personal story, and we don't need 250,000 crystals and six exquisite chandeliers. In fact, I say that the screenwriters succeeded BECAUSE the crystal chandeliers were ciphers in the movie while the "ugly" things popped out.
I don't know what to make of your realization that I was "aware" of the "oppressive apartment, toilets, bathtub," etc. Those things were central to the character's personal story, GRIPPING ME the viewer in a way those exquisite chandeliers did not (they were automatically DISCOUNTED, remember?!1). I'll be danged if I can even remember any of the six chandeliers except as a FLASH in a couple of flashing-by dance scenes.
My point in the 250,000 crystals was really mundane: Like, WHY *that* kind of DETAIL that 99.9% of viewers WON'T SEE except as a blur of light?!1 Might as well show ONE crystal in close-up and then a cut-out of mirror with a light flashing on it to simulate a chandelier!1 O.K., I'll stop now.
I'll say again, I "got" the movie, what it was about. My reference originally to "Rosemary's Baby" (regarding atmosphere) is largely because of the NY apartment.
As for you're wanting to see it again, I'm really aghast. And I say this, not because I thought it a bad movie. It is an excellent movie. But it was emotionally draining and pitiful and I wouldn't want to go through it again for the supposed voyeuristic sake of stacking up contrasting details and ironies.
There are plenty of good movies, even those that are not so demanding on the nerves, that I don't want to see again, including "feel-good" type movies: Yesterday and today "An Officer and a Gentleman" was showing on satellite. I saw it once BACK WHEN, I liked it, but I don't want to see it again. And by "see it again" I mean "GO THROUGH it again."
I'll dig up my original "review". -----ON EDIT: Here's the original thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9600636