I don't even think it's fair to Black Swan to say she's told to step into the roles of virgin and whore, because I think the movie's attitude toward sexuality doesn't fall into the usual value judgments that dichotomy implies. Nina may think sexuality is bad, but I don't think the film does; peering around the edges of Nina's point of view, it looks like the "whore" character is happy and well-balanced, at peace with her sexuality and in control of what she does with it. The "virgin" character, on the other hand, is anything but balanced; having repressed those impulses practically out of sight, she's at the mercy of those around her, and her own rebellion against control. Even Leroy's exploitation of her isn't the exploitation I expected it to be: he doesn't seem to be interested in her sexually, only artistically, and sex is a tool for that, just like the mirrors in the studio are. He's trying to show her something she can't otherwise see.

And I really don't agree with that NYT article. It's hard to separate the protagonist's attitudes from those of the story, but I don't think Nina's loves are illicit, or that the movie says "a woman’s truest fulfillment is as (heterosexual) lover, wife and mother, and therefore that Nina’s best artistic successes can never compensate for her personal sacrifices" -- I think it's out to show that Nina's own thinking on those matters is twisted, that she sees her own loves as illicit, and that she has no idea how to balance artistic success with those other sacrifices. To try and be non-spoilery for those who may be reading these comments . . . I'd say the sense I was left with at the end of the movie was, being both extremes at once is destructive, or at least Nina's path to achieving it was. (Could Lily have danced the White Swan well? We never really find out.)

Anyway, I agree that Portman's performance is a good one. Haven't seen the other movie, but dismissing Portman as just "looking scared all the time" is a gross mis-judgment of her work.