As of today, the notion of ‘canonical film’ enjoys much popularity with film critics and ordinary moviegoers. The validity of this suggestion can be shown about the periodic publishing of the lists of top 25, 50, 100 such films in the Time magazine, and the fact that even an odd person asked on a street would be able to name at least a few canonical movies. At the same time, however, there is no universally recognized definition as to what the concerned notion stands for and what are the objective indications that a particular film is indeed canonical (Schrader 35). One of the reasons for this is that the issue of ‘canonicalness’ in movies is now assessed within the methodological frameworks of two different theories, which can generally be categorized as ‘auteurist’(or ‘aesthetic’) and ‘discursive’. The proponents of the former believe that when it comes to elaborating on whether a particular film can be deemed canonical or not, one must take into primary consideration the qualitative aspects of the affiliated director’s strive towards self-actualization as an artist (Richards 92). According to the ‘auteurist’ point of view, a canonical movie can even be considered the one that never enjoyed much popularity with people – all for as long as it is concerned with revolutionizing the cinematographic format in one way or another (Christie 6). The advocates of the ‘discursive’ outlook on what accounts for the proper approach to defining the term ‘cinematographic canon’ do not quite agree. According to them, it is specifically the sheer strength of a particular film’s psycho-mental consistency with the currently prevalent socio-cultural discourse, which should be indicative of the concerned movie being indeed canonical. The ‘discursive’ conceptualization of cinematographic canon derives from the “practice of viewing films as symptoms of social formations, economic conditions, or psychological predilections, rather than aesthetic objects” (Lupo 222). As of today, however, it is becoming increasingly clearer that namely the ‘discursive’ approach to determining ‘canonicalness’ should be deemed thoroughly legitimate. The reason for this is that, as practice shows, most of the universally recognized canonical films are indeed highly reflective of what used to be the affecting social, economic, and cultural circumstances at the time of these movies’ making. There is even more to it – canonical films appear to be nothing but the cinematic sublimation of people’s deep-seated archetypal anxieties, on one hand, and of their innate predisposition to lead a socially integrated lifestyle, on the other (Ozguven 165). Moreover, canonical films also resonate perfectly well with people’s unconscious angsts as to what accounts for the biologically predetermined essence of the relationship between men and women (Geller 74). In my paper, I will explore the validity of these suggestions concerning the 1950 canonical film All About Eve , directed by Joseph Mankiewicz. Ever since the time of Mankiewicz movie’s theatrical release, it continued to be highly acclaimed by critics as such that features the supreme acting performances on the part of the cast and contains many insights into the commonly overlooked ‘predatory’ aspects of the society’s functioning. The latter quality contributes to making All