Ironic? (Spoilers)
I would like to ask if anyone else viewed the film as ironic.
Set in a fundamentally non-capitalist rural community, the peasant woman refuses to see money as a just compensation for a social conflict. She pursues her case to her own financial disadvantage, wanting to be 'made whole' not with compensation for lost wages or 'losing face,' but to have the respect and honest apology from the Chief to her husband for the pain, embarrassment, and potential impotence he caused Qiu Ju's husband.
Yet the machinery of the law is unable to recognize the 'personal' element in the confrontation. Official after official, lawyer after consultant each looks on it as something to be haggled over, and a price determined.
There is a piteous irony that the woman who has a deep, wholesome sense of 'value' is disappointed again and again by the impersonal touch of the law.
I wonder if I am over imbuing the film with meaning, but I felt that this was in some sense a critique of all authority; it is able to escalate or abstract confrontations (into estimates of 'damages' and financial value), but not resolve them.
Any takers on this?