What’s in a name? If it’s a single name, then it’s ego in that name. Madonna, Cher, the Rock, Avi; each of these individuals–largely from the entertainment and arts communities–apparently think so much of themselves that they actually believe they can go through life with one name and we will all know who they are.
In a sense, since these egomaniancs have achieved some form of recognition, they probably can get along with one name, thanks to our national media who believe it’s their duty to build these people up and worship them like they were doctors or something, not just people playing pretend.
The media have always done this, of course. Look at all the movie stars who became recognized by their last names only in the Golden Age of cinema. People like Bogart, Brando, Gable, Hepburn, Mitchum… Or writers and directors such as Capote, Disney, DeMille, Hitchcock, Huston, Welles and Wilder.
All the above were larger that life both for the films they made and the lives they led. But notice two things: First, the media and the public were the ones who decided these people were worthy of one name, not the celebrities themselves. Secondly, it was their last names that received the emphasis, not their first. People didn’t rush to the movies to see “Humphrey,” they went to see “Bogart.” They didn’t rush out to see the latest “Alfred” thriller; they went out to see a “Hitchcock” movie.
So, what’s with the emphasis on first names these days? Why don’t the covers of Hollywood gossip magazines have headlines featuring names like Affleck, Jolie, Pitt and Depp, instead of Ben, Angelina, Brad and Johnny?
I have a theory, and it is that the naming of supposedly influential people by their first names began about the same time as the trend towards being friends with authority figures. Once that trend took hold, suddenly your kid’s teacher was not Mr. Jones, he was “Dave.” The local policeman was not Sargent Johnson, he was the much friendlier, “Officer Bill.” About the same time, psychologists were telling parents that they should be their children’s friends, not their superiors.
So, isn’t it possible that in our enthusiastic quest for a society in which all people are equal, whether black or white, rich or poor, old or young, leader or follower, it became the habit to start referring to celebrities–be they writers, artists, actors, directors, athletes, and even the stars of big business (Martha and Donald, for example)–by their first names?
All I know is that I refuse to accept people who think they can run around with just one name. If the rest of us have to schlepp around the world with two names, why can’t Madonna, Cher, Brad, Ben and Johhny do likewise?
My suggestion is that everyone takes a sharpie with them on every trip to the grocery store. When you get to the checkout stand, take out that pen and add last names to all those individuals whose monikers appear on the covers of the Star, National Enquirer and Globe newspapers. That’ll show them they can’t go around acting like one name is all they need in this two-name society.
Then, just for fun, draw a mustache on Angelina Jolie.
Tags: Angelina, Brando, celebrities, Hitchcock
