“Amelia,” the Hollywood biopic of Amelia Earhart, was released today. The critics don’t seem impressed, but what interests me isn’t the movie’s quality so much as how it may affect the popularity of the name Amelia.
One-name biopics sometimes make a dent on the baby name charts. After “Frida” (2002), “Ali” (2001) and “Lenny” (1974), the number of babies named Frida, Ali and Lenny increased.
Of course, not all one-name biopics have the same impact. “Sylvia” (2003), “Evita” (1996) and “Rudy” (1993) didn’t inspire any parents-to-be to embrace those particular names.
The tricky thing about Amelia is that it’s already fashionable. Three years ago, it was the 83rd most popular baby name in the nation. Two years ago, it was 76th. Last year, it was 68th. So it will probably continue to rise, regardless of the movie.
But will the movie give the name an extra boost? What do you think?
Amelia won’t work here (NL), mostly because we have a crown princess to be named Amalia. Both names are considered very old fashioned. Amélie on the other hand (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0211915/) is quite popular nowadays.
What about Juno? That name was virtually non existent over here, until the movie Juno. In 2008 we had 22 little Juno’s in the Netherlands, which is a lot for a ‘new’ name. How is Juno doing in the US?
I wonder if the movie Amelie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0211915/) contributed to the trend initially?
Emma, great question about Juno. I’ve been wondering about that one, too.
Unfortunately, the Popular Baby Names list for the U.S. only goes to 1,000, and the 1,000th most popular name last year belonged to 261 baby girls. Any name below that remains a mystery.
I’d bet there are baby girls out there named Juno, but I have no idea how many.