So is this movie meant to simulate the feeling of being raped?

I'm not joking. Let me explain.

When you watch a movie, there is a certain unspoken bond of trust between the audience and the filmmaker. That they will not do certain things. That you can trust the movie to not cross certain lines.

That movie crosses that line again and again. I'm not even referring to the rape scene itself or the fire extinguisher scene. I mean the camera work, the constant low frequency noise designed to produce vertigo (look it up on the imdb faq) and most of all the ENDING.

OH THE ENDING.

It felt like the director was violating every bond of trust between audience and filmmaker, on the most basic level. Like "I trust you not to shoot the film in a way that will make me nauseous, dizzy, will give me a headache and possibly give me epileptic seizures". That spinning shot and those flashing lights.

To me it felt like it was a simulation of a rape. A visual rape of the audience.

This was the only time I ever had to literally look away during a film. I covered my eyes with a pillow. I have a headache right now as I type this but I fear it would've been even worse had I not averted my eyes.

So is that what the camera work and the ending in particular were all about? To simulate the feeling of being raped. The loss of control, the disorienation and the feeling that the director and the film itself are fundamentally violating you, breaking an unspoken contract between director and audience?

Is that what that was all about?