Let's see, it was a ficitional account based on Columbine. It was generally ignored by both the critics and the paying public. It received no recognition in the US-based Oscars.
Yet it gets the Palme.
Yes, I'm thinking it was more politics than performance.
Sort of like this comment from CNN:
While "Fahrenheit 9/11" was well-received by Cannes audiences, many critics felt it was inferior to Moore's Academy Award-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine," which earned him a special prize at Cannes in 2002. Some critics had speculated that if "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top prize, it would be more for the film's politics than its cinematic value.
In fact, just like BFC got the "Special Jury Prize" at Cannes. There's no way that film can be stretched to be considered a "good documentary"; as a documentary, it was a joke. But it got a 13 minute standing ovation at Canne and a "special prize".
Politics, not cinematic excellence.
