act

Animation is an art of the impossible, though it often settles for the ordinary. Much of what comprises adult animation merely translates into line what might be shown in live action — humans in human settings. Which is fine. Some great shows fit that bill — “King of the Hill” and “Bob’s Burgers,” for example. Still, there are infinite avenues to explore, and so it’s good to have Adult Swim, the network that once produced a series whose heroes are a meatball, a shake and a bag of fries, still making aesthetic trouble.

“The Elephant,” which premieres Friday on the network, and Saturday on HBO Max alongside a documentary on its creation, “Behind the Elephant,” is an animated take on exquisite corpse, the old surrealist game in which three artists contribute the head, torso or legs of a single figure, folding the paper so as not to see what the others had drawn. This project enlists four fab animators over three acts — “Adventure Time” creator Pendleton Ward, Ian Jones-Quartey (“OK K.O.! Let’s Be Heroes”), Rebecca Sugar (“Steven Universe”) and Patrick McHale (“Over the Garden Wall”) — to make something that not only had we not seen before, but none of them had either, until their independently produced parts were put together. All are “Adventure Time” vets, as are Jack Pendarvis and Kent Osborne, who conceived the idea, served as “game keepers,” and share story credit with the animators.

Exquisite corpse was also used in character design. It invariably produces monsters, if amusing ones, which explains why the character — let’s call her The Character — in Ward’s act has a cactus for an arm and a giant pink foot in place of one leg. In the Jones-Quartey and Sugar act, she has robot arms, fishnet stockings and a “music button” in her chest (the city parties when its disco plays), and in McHale’s, a TV for a torso. One regards The Character as the same person in each act, and through changes that occur within each act — identity, death and reincarnation are at the heart of the show. She’s always different, though always the protagonist. (And seemingly female.) Which is not surprising if you’ve ever watched “Adventure Time,” where even every villain is also a protagonist.

Ward takes the first act; Jones-Quartey and Sugar, who are married, worked together on the second; and McHale brings it home with Act 3. Ward’s section is easily recognizable as his work in its mix of the uncanny and the offhand, both from “Adventure Time” and the psychedelic “Midnight Gospel.” Sugar and Jones-Quartey opt for a New Wave angularity far from their usual styles, and McHale cycles through several looks until his Character, who arrives already hoping to get off this wheel of endless rebirth and cease to exist, settles down for a spell in a realistically portrayed city in the snow — New York, I’d say — in conversation with a lonely inventor. McHale also brings in, for just a few seconds, the eponymous elephant in an apropos reference to the parable of the blind men who imagined that animal to be a different sort of beast depending on where they laid their hands.

Each animator (or team) integrates their position in the game — and the nature of the game itself — into their storytelling. Ward’s Character, born onscreen, wonders “What am I? I’m not sure.” In the second section, Sugar and Jones-Quartey have their narrating Character say, “I could feel my existence stretching in both directions, back to the nothingness before anything happened and forward to the nothingness after everything is over. And if everything has a beginning and also a end then this was just the middle.” By virtue of owning the conclusion, and it’s a moving one, McHale brings order to the whole; given the scattered process, and the changes between and within each section, it feels remarkably cohesive and intentional. But metamorphosis is the soul of animation.

If “The Elephant,” described by the network as “a creative experience,” had appeared before it was already published, it would have certainly joined four other animated series — three from Adult Swim — on my list of 2025 favorites. It demands a second viewing, and you’ll want to watch “Behind the Elephant” to learn more. You may want to watch that twice as well.

WASHINGTON — A Minneapolis jury’s conviction of former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin in the murder of George Floyd has reignited debate about what policing should look like in the United States.

In the weeks following Floyd’s death and the ensuing outrage that caused millions of Americans to pour into the streets to protest in the midst of a pandemic, Congress promised fundamental change to policing.

There was legislation to standardize training across the country, to keep problem officers from moving between departments without their records following them, to ban the use of chokeholds and no-knock warrants.

But Congress failed to reach an agreement that could pass both the House and Senate and attention moved to other things.

Negotiations for a bipartisan deal on police reform continue informally on Capitol Hill, and the lead House sponsor, Rep. Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that she is hopeful because those involved are “very sincere, and it’s a bipartisan group.”

Bass is working with Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.). She told reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday that she is optimistic they will reach an agreement and get a bill to President Biden’s desk in the coming months.

“I believe that we want to make something happen,” Bass said.

Last month the House passed Bass’ George Floyd Justice in Policing Act by a 220-212 vote, with no Republican support and two Democrats voting no.

The legislation, which would ban chokeholds, end “qualified immunity” for law enforcement officers and create national standards for policing in a bid to bolster accountability, passed the House last summer but was not considered by the Republican-controlled Senate.

Democrats in turn blocked consideration of a Republican policing reform bill proposed by Scott last summer, saying though it was similar to their proposal in some ways, it did not go far enough because it did not modify so-called qualified immunity for police officers, which has made it harder for victims of brutality to file civil lawsuits over excessive force, or make it easier to prosecute police officers for criminal behavior.

Even now that Democrats control the Senate, hurdles remain for passing policing reform out of the Senate, where most legislation faces a 60-vote threshold, Bass said.

“It’s one thing to pass legislation in the House; it’s a super hurdle to get it passed in the Senate,” Bass said in the CNN interview. “But we are working.”

When word came of Rob Reiner’s senseless death, America fell into familiar rites of mourning and remembrance. A waterfall of tributes poured in from the twin worlds — Hollywood and politics — that the actor, director and liberal activist inhabited.

Through the shock and haze, before all but the sketchiest details were known, President Trump weighed in as well, driving by his diarrhetic compulsion to muse on just about every passing event, as though he was elected not to govern but to serve as America’s commentator in chief.

Trump’s response, fairly shimmying on Reiner’s grave as he wrongly attributed his death to an act of political vengeance, managed to plumb new depths of heartlessness and cruelty; more than a decade into his acrid emergence as a political force, the president still manages to stoop to surprise.

But as vile and tasteless as Trump’s self-pitying statement was — Reiner, he averred, was a victim of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and, essentially, got what he deserved — it also pointed out a singular truism of his vengeful residency in the Oval Office.

In recent decades, the nation has had a president who lied and deceived to cover up his personal vices. Another who plunged the country into a costly and needless war. A third whose willfulness and vanity led him to overstay his time, hurting his party and America as well.

Still, each acted as though he was a president of all the people, not just those who voted him into office, contributed lavishly to his campaign or blindly cheered his every move, however reckless or ill-considered.

As Trump has repeatedly made clear, he sees the world in black-and-white, red-versus-blue, us-versus-them.

There are the states he carried that deserve federal funding. The voters whose support entitles them to food aid and other benefits. The sycophants bestowed with medals and presidential commendations.

And then there are his critics and political opponents — those he proudly and admittedly hates — whose suffering and even demise he openly savors.

When Charlie Kirk was killed, Trump ordered flags be flown at half-staff. He flew to Arizona to headline his memorial service. His vice president, JD Vance, suggested people should be fired for showing any disrespect toward the late conservative provocateur.

By noteworthy contrast, when a gunman killed Minnesota’s Democratic former House speaker, Melissa Hortman, Trump couldn’t be bothered with even a simple act of grace. Asked if he’d called to offer his condolences to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a personal friend of Hortman, Trump responded, “Why waste time?”

This is not normal, much less humane.

This is not politics as usual, or someone rewarding allies and seeking to disadvantage the political opposition, as all presidents have done. This is the nation’s chief executive using the immense powers of his office and the world’s largest, most resonant megaphone to deliver retribution, ruin people’s lives, inflict misery — and revel in the pain.

There were the usual denunciations of Trump’s callous and contemptuous response to Reiner’s stabbing death.

“I’d expect to hear something like this from a drunk guy at a bar, not the president of the United States,” said Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who is retiring rather than seeking reelection in 2026. (Which may be why he was so candid and spoke so bracingly.)

But this time, the criticisms did not just come from the typical anti-Trump chorus, or heterodox Republicans like Bacon and MAGA-stalwart-turned-taunter Marjorie Taylor Greene. Even some of the president’s longest and loudest advocates felt compelled to speak out.

“This is a dreadful thing to say about a man who just got murdered by his troubled son,” British broadcaster Piers Morgan posted on X. “Delete it, Mr. President.”

More telling, though, was the response from the Republican Party’s leadership.

“I don’t have much more to say about it, other than it’s a tragedy, and my sympathies and prayers go out to the Reiner family and to their friends,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told CNN when asked about Trump’s response. House Speaker Mike Johnson responded in a similarly nonresponsive vein.

Clearly, the see-and-hear-no-evil impulse remains strong in the upper echelons of the GOP — at least until more election returns show the price Republicans are paying as Trump keeps putting personal vendettas ahead of voters’ personal finances.

One of the enduring reasons supporters say they back the president is Trump’s supposed honesty. (Never mind the many voluminously documented lies he has told on a near-constant basis.)

Honesty, in this sense, means saying things that a more temperate and careful politician would never utter, and it’s an odd thing to condone in the nation’s foremost leader. Those with even a modicum of caring and compassion, who would never tell a friend they’re ugly or call a neighbor stupid — and who expect the same respect and decency in return — routinely ignore or explain away such casual cruelty when it comes from this president.

Those who insist Trump can do no wrong, who defend his every foul utterance or engage in but-what-about relativism to minimize the import, need not remain in his constant thrall.

When Trump steps so egregiously over a line, when his malice is so extravagant and spitefulness so manifest — as it was when he mocked Reiner in death — then, even the most fervent of the president’s backers should call him out.

Do it, and reclaim a little piece of your humanity.

Dec. 16 (Asia Today) — “Decade of the Spy” was a label used by U.S. media in the 1980s, when major espionage cases involving the former Soviet Union were uncovered year after year. In 2025, the phrase has resurfaced in a different context: most information is now digital, physical distance matters less, and the security environment has shifted toward a broader “all-against-all” competition.

Against that backdrop, South Korea is pushing amendments to Article 98 of the Criminal Act, commonly referred to as the Espionage Act. Enacted in 1953, the law has historically been applied primarily to North Korea, even as alleged espionage activity linked to other countriesh as increased. The proposed revision would allow espionage acts carried out on behalf of any foreign country to be prosecuted under the same statute.

But practitioners argue that changing the law is not enough. Bae Jeong-seok, an adjunct professor at Sungkyunkwan University’s Graduate School of National Strategy and a former National Intelligence Service counterespionage bureau chief with more than 30 years of experience, said revising the law is “normalization,” not a full upgrade of counterintelligence capacity.

In an interview with Asia Today on Dec. 8, Bae said counterespionage should be treated not only as a criminal matter but as a national security function that requires long-term operations and can carry diplomatic value.

-What structural limitations existed for counterespionage activities under the current legal framework?

“Today’s intelligence environment is not like the Cold War, when you mainly focused on one adversary. It involves many state actors. But in South Korea, activity linked to foreign intelligence services other than North Korea often could not be charged as espionage. It was handled under separate laws protecting military secrets or industrial technology. In counterintelligence, the core is recruiting sources and running counter-operations, including using double agents, to gather more information. If everything is treated only as a standard criminal case, it limits intelligence work that needs time and flexibility.”

-How does this revised espionage bill compare to major advanced nations?

“This is not ‘toughening’ the law so much as bringing South Korea in line with what many advanced countries already have. But legal tools to deal with influence operations are still limited. Efforts to shape public opinion, cultivate media ties, or influence policymaking can be hard to prosecute under traditional espionage charges. A separate reporting-based system like the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires disclosure of certain activities performed on behalf of foreign principals, is also needed.”

-What will change with this amendment?

“It can help deter and disrupt foreign intelligence activity. If recruiting agents or providing information to a foreign intelligence service is itself treated as espionage, authorities can investigate earlier and more directly. That reduces the risk of South Korean citizens being recruited. It also gives counterintelligence more room to run long-term operations instead of moving immediately to prosecution in every case.”

-What aspects of the amendment require further refinement?

“The most important point is allowing strategic decision-making. Counterespionage should not be limited to catching spies and quickly building a prosecution. It requires understanding how networks operate over time, then recruiting and turning sources. In some cases, captured agents can also be used as leverage in security and diplomatic channels. Without that kind of approach, you fall behind in modern intelligence competition.”

-Beyond legal amendments, what direction should counterespionage personnel, technology, and organizational culture take?

“Police are expanding counterespionage efforts, but the main responsibility should remain with the NIS, which has the specialized experience. Police, which have investigative authority, can focus on arrests and prosecution. Coordination between the two needs to improve. Over the long term, South Korea should consider a dedicated counterintelligence body. This work requires continuity, and the typical government job-rotation system is not well suited to long-term operations.”

– Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

NEW YORK — For one Wisconsin couple, the loss of government-sponsored health subsidies next year means choosing a lower-quality insurance plan with a higher deductible. For a Michigan family, it means going without insurance altogether.

For a single mom in Nevada, the spiking costs mean fewer Christmas gifts this year. She is stretching her budget already while she waits to see if the Republican-led Congress will act.

Less than three weeks remain until the expiration of COVID-era enhanced tax credits that have helped millions of Americans pay their monthly fees for Affordable Care Act coverage for the last four years.

The Senate on Thursday rejected two proposals to address the problem, and an emerging healthcare package from House Republicans does not include an extension, all but guaranteeing that many Americans will see much higher insurance costs in 2026.

Here are a few of their stories.

Spending more for less

Chad Bruns comes from a family of savers. That came in handy when the 58-year-old military veteran had to leave his firefighting career early because of arm and back injuries incurred on the job.

He and his wife, Kelley, 60, both retirees, cut their own firewood to reduce their electricity costs in their home in Sawyer County, Wis. They rarely eat out and say they buy groceries only when they are on sale.

But to the extent that they have always been frugal, they will be forced to be even more so now, Bruns said. That is because their coverage under the health law enacted under former President Obama is, because of congressional inaction, getting more expensive — and for worse coverage.

This year, the Brunses were paying $2 per month for a top-tier gold-level plan with less than a $4,000 deductible. Their income was low enough to help them qualify for a lot of financial assistance.

But in 2026, that same plan is rising to an unattainable $1,600 per month, forcing them to downgrade to a bronze plan with a $15,000 deductible.

Kelley Bruns said she is concerned that if something happens to their health in the next year, they could go bankrupt. While their monthly fees are low at about $25, their new out-of-pocket maximum at $21,000 amounts to nearly half their joint income.

“We have to pray that we don’t have to have surgery or don’t have to have some medical procedure done that we’re not aware of,” she said. “It would be very devastating.”

Forgoing insurance

Dave Roof’s family of four has been on ACA insurance since the program started in 2014. Back then, the accessibility of insurance on the marketplace helped him feel comfortable taking the leap to start a small music production and performance company in his hometown of Grand Blanc, Mich. His wife, Kristin, is also self-employed as a top seller on Etsy.

Their coverage has worked for them so far, even when emergencies come up, such as an ATV accident their 21-year-old daughter had last year.

But now, with the expiration of Obamacare subsidies that kept their premiums down, the 53-year-old Roof said their $500-per-month insurance plan is jumping to at least $700 a month, along with spiking deductibles and out-of-pocket costs.

With their joint income of about $75,000 a year, that increase is not manageable, he said. So, they are planning to go without health insurance next year, paying cash for prescriptions, checkups and anything else that arises.

Roof said his family is already living cheaply and has not taken a vacation together since 2021. As it is, they do not save money or add it to their retirement accounts. So even though forgoing insurance is stressful, it is what they must do.

“The fear and anxiety that it’s going to put on my wife and I is really hard to measure,” Roof said. “But we can’t pay for what we can’t pay for.”

Single mom’s straining budget

If you ask Katelin Provost, the American middle class has gone from experiencing a squeeze to a “full suffocation.”

The 37-year-old social worker in Henderson, Nev., counts herself in that category. As a single mom, she already keeps a tight budget to cover housing, groceries and daycare for her 4-year-old daughter.

Next year, that is going to be even tougher.

The monthly fee on her plan is going up from $85 to nearly $750. She decided she is going to pay that higher cost for January and reevaluate afterward, depending on whether lawmakers extend the subsidies, which as of now appears unlikely. She hopes they will.

If Congress does not act, she will drop herself off the health insurance and keep it only for her daughter because she cannot afford the higher fee for the two of them over the long term.

The strain of one month alone is enough to have an impact.

“I’m going to have to reprioritize the next couple of months to rebalance that budget,” Provost said. “Christmas will be much smaller.”

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

HE held back tears in his Netflix documentary when he heard about the tragic death of One Direction star Liam Payne.

And I can reveal that, as a mark of respect, Simon Cowell sent the emotional footage from The Next Act to Liam’s family and his ex Cheryl Tweedy before it aired this week.

The six-parter sees Simon searching for the next big boyband after the record-breaking success of 1D on the X Factor in 2010.

After the series dropped on Wednesday, the music mogul said he felt he “had to tell” Liam’s loved ones his passing was acknowledged on the show.

Simon said: “In the middle, there was that moment with Liam, which was just horrific. That really threw us. I was very close to him and that was hard. We almost stopped filming. I had to go away, clear my head.

“We took a break for about two weeks. Before that it had been almost every day. I sent [parts of episode three] to Liam’s parents and Cheryl to see, for obvious reasons, and I said, ‘Look, I don’t want you to just see it when it airs’.

READ MORE ON SIMON COWELL

ex factor

Inside Simon Cowell’s biggest flops from girlband blunder to axed £15m TV show

next move

Simon Cowell reveals he’s planning wild TV show that will ‘disgust’ viewers

‘Made a promise’

“And so the production company sent it to them and they were fine with it. It was respectful, I think.”

The Next Act had been filming almost daily since December 2023, allowing cameras access to Simon’s talent hunt.

But he paused to consider if they should continue after Liam’s death in Buenos Aires, Argentina in October last year.

Liam and Cheryl, who were together for two years, share a son Bear, eight.

Simon said of Liam in the episode: “He was just so normal and down to earth, he always had a sparkle in his eye.

“Everyone adored him. You don’t know how you feel about someone until you lose them. I am going to genuinely miss him.”

After the two-week break, Simon said he realised he had made the show hopefuls “a promise”, so filming resumed.

The group, DECEMBER 10, have just signed a deal with EMI/Universal.

I was lucky enough to watch John, Cruz, Nicolas, Sean, Josh, Danny and Hendrik at a top-secret playback in London on Wednesday.

From what I saw, these boys will do Simon proud.

Lily’s Vic and Bob

LILY COLLINS has had a Posh makeover for the fifth series of Netflix’s Emily In Paris.

The actress has channelled Victoria Beckham’s Spice Girl alter ego for the series, which kicks off on Thursday.

Director Andy Fleming told Biz on Sunday: “There is for sure a Posh Spice vibe going on this season. I noticed it straight away. I mean, her bob. Hello?”

It comes after Lily was stunned to meet her idol Victoria on the set of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon.

Looks like this season will be full of girl power.

Grinch must be feeling Jaded

JADE THIRLWALL doesn’t do fancy dress by halves.

The former Little Mix singer is one of the most costume-committed celebs – rivalled only by Heidi Klum on Halloween.

But even Heidi would have been green with envy when she saw what Jade wore on a night out in London on Friday.

The singer, who turns 33 on Boxing Day, went all out and dressed up as the female Grinch character.

She even persuaded her boyfriend, Rizzle Kicks rapper Jordan Stephens, to go with the green theme.

Their bed sheets must have been a nightmare to clean  . . . 

Taylor hands mega bonuses to crew

HER record-breaking Eras Tour propelled Taylor Swift to billionaire status.

And after making fans’ dreams come true with her dazzling show, the US superstar did the same for her tour crew.

The Shake It Off hitmaker is believed to have handed out $197million – around £148million – in bonuses to every person who helped with her shows.

Taylor thanked each crew member with a handwritten letter, sealed with a wax stamp, and a bonus – with each of her truck drivers understood to have received cheques for $100,000 (£75,000).

One insider, who worked in catering, said they were able to pay off their student loan and still have thousands of dollars left over.

And in her new Disney+ documentary, The End Of An Era, Taylor is seen handing out the huge cheques to her dancers.

She said: “It took me a couple of weeks – but it is fun to write the notes.

“It is fun to think about everyone’s lives that they are going to go back to and the time off they are going to have. And the kids they haven’t seen because they have been away for months and making that worthwhile for them.

“It feels like Christmas morning when you finally get to say thank you.”

Speaking to her dancers, Taylor said: “The tour has done really well thanks to all of our hard work so if you would kindly read this message . . . ”

Handing the letter to dancer Kam Saunders, he read: “Dearest Kam, we have travelled the world like we set out to do.

“We have dazzled the crowds but we have missed family too.

“My full gratitude doesn’t come from the bank – but here’s (bleeped out) just to say thanks. Love, Taylor.”

The dancers were seen hugging and crying after receiving the life-changing bonuses.

One dancer even clutched an inhaler after opening her letter.

I imagine I would have hyperventilated as well.

Oasis bank fortune for reunion tour

THE drinks are on the Gallagher brothers this Christmas after the Oasis Live ’25 comeback tour raked in an incredible £303million.

New stats by US music mag Pollstar have revealed Britpop pioneers Noel and Liam made $405,428,435, sold 2,228,471 tickets to their long-awaited reunion gigs, with a nightly revenue of $11,261,901 – £8,430,546.47.

Their 41-date trek spanned five continents and 13 countries between July and November.

And the siblings played to an average of 61,902 people per night.

Meanwhile, the average fan is believed to have spent £136 on a ticket.

I revealed last week that Noel, who has an estimated net worth of £53million, was whisking his family off to the Maldives for a festive getaway after five months on the road.

Oasis ranked No2 in the biggest-grossing tours of 2025 – with US superstar Beyonce holding the top spot .

The Texas Hold ’Em hitmaker saw her Cowboy Carter Tour gross $407,600,113, (around £305million), with an average ticket price of £191.

Coldplay were third, followed by Kendrick Lamar/SZA.

But Shakira, The Weeknd and Lady Gaga all had to settle for spots further down the Top Ten.

Some might say Noel and Liam nailed it . . . 

Rushing back into Big Time

THEY rose to fame as teenagers on a US TV series about a boy band – and 16 years later Big Time Rush have revealed they have a whole new generation of fans, thanks to Netflix.

The streaming giant gave a new lease of life to the original series of the sitcom, which first aired in the States from 2009 to 2013 and featured the group playing a fictionalised version of themselves.

Biz on Sunday’s Emily chatted to band members Kendall Schmidt, James Maslow, Carlos Penavega and Logan Henderson backstage ahead of their final tour date at London’s Ovo Arena Wembley on Thursday.

Kendall said: “We got lucky during Covid because Netflix picked up the show. Everybody was at home just binge watching stuff, so this whole new generation of kids started watching it.”

Carlos added: “It’s weird seeing my kids come to the show because they didn’t even exist back then.”

Asked how touring compares now they are in their 30s, Kendall replied: “We all definitely went out a lot more in our 20s – but now I truly enjoy getting up early and getting to see different aspects of the city.”

Logan added: “When we were younger, things were moving so fast we didn’t really get a chance to breathe and really soak it in.”

From what I saw on Thursday night, the boys are still on their A-game.

• Check out Big Time Rush on our TikTok channel where the boys reveal their Sunday Setlist. Scan left.

This week who would I…

Snog

Marry

Avoid

“H Is for Hawk” is for the birds. And such majestic creatures they are, holding their own opposite the magnificent Claire Foy (“All of Us Strangers”).

The film, directed by Philippa Lowthorpe and based on Helen Macdonald’s memoir, centers on Foy’s character Helen, devastated by the sudden loss of her father (played by Brendan Gleeson). In her grief, she turns to a childhood interest, falconry, and buys a goshawk. The wilder the bird, the tamer the name; Helen calls her Mabel.

Producer Dede Gardner and Lowthorpe had worked with Foy before (in “Women Talking” and “The Crown,” respectively) and agreed she’d be perfect as Helen. But Mabel was another story entirely.

Lowthorpe tapped Lloyd and Rose Buck, married bird specialists who had worked for decades on natural history documentaries with the likes of David Attenborough. Since they were conveniently located not far from her home in Bristol, England, the three got together to figure out how to make the film work.

Five birds were needed to play the character of Mabel at different points; the main two would have to be raised and trained by the couple long before filming began. Sisters Mabel 1 and Mabel 2 had the bulk of the work. “They’re from the same clutch, but they’re like chalk and cheese in character,” says Lloyd. “Mabel 2 is much shier and has more wildness in her,” so she was used in the nervous bird scenes early on. Mabel 1 was used to fly to and from Foy’s glove, and for much of the action depicting Helen cohabiting with Mabel in her house.

Jess, on loan from a friend in Scotland with a falconry center, was accustomed to people, so she was featured in Mabel’s calmest moments. Juha, the only male and much smaller than the females, was seen only in high aerial shots. And Lottie starred in the hunting scenes, traveling up to 45 miles an hour through the woods to capture her prey.

Before filming was set to begin, Foy visited the Bucks for two weeks of intensive falconry training. “That was a crucial moment for the whole project, because unless they’ve taken to Claire and she’s taken to them, I don’t think it could ever have worked,” Lloyd says. “But because she was so amazing, it works. She’s interested, clever, intelligent, but above all she’s just a lovely person, and that’s what they see. You can’t fool them, they’re not silly; they can see if someone’s pretending to like them but they don’t really.”

Foy was delighted to work with the birds and with the Bucks. “They’re incredibly kind people,” she says. “They’re so tender and so beautiful with their birds, and therefore they are with other human beings as well. But also they just threw me in. At the end of the first day I was with Lottie hunting, letting her release off my arm. Learning with the birds was the last piece of the puzzle of Helen and the experience I was going to have, so it became a really profound experience.”

“Claire put her heart and soul into that training,” Lowthorpe says. “She has great physical instincts as well as emotional instincts.”

Everything on set revolved around the hawks’ well-being. Filming took place between October and January, to avoid molting season. Everyone in the crew wore drab, dark colors, because that’s what the birds were used to. Microphones were hidden because the birds didn’t like booms, and most of the crew hid upstairs; even Lowthorpe hid behind a piece of furniture with her monitor. Lloyd or Rose would either hood or remove the scene’s Mabel, and give the all-clear, before the crew could reappear to work between takes.

“I told Charlotte Bruus Christensen, our fantastic DP, we should just film everything,” Lowthorpe recalls. “If you pin it you might kill the flavor of danger or surprise. Claire was so in tune in those scenes, she was able to react in an improvisational way, and she would be in her character at all times during those long, long takes. Like I was capturing the hawks, I was capturing Claire, allowing her to move wherever she wanted.”

“It wasn’t like having another actor who had another agenda or actions or a perspective that they wanted to get across in the scene,” Foy says. “I was along for the ride with these animals.”

When Helen takes Mabel for her first walk around the house, she talks gently to her. “This is my kitchen,” she says. Mabel flaps her wings wildly. “It’s not that bad.” The bird poops. “Oh, thanks very much.”

Mabel becomes both salvation and addiction to Helen. “To feel that alive, chasing a goshawk as it’s hunting, you’re part of this extraordinary experience, which feels spiritual and meaningful,” Foy explains. “I do think that we try to avoid the ugliness of grief at all costs, like that’s something you’re supposed to do alone in a cupboard that isn’t witnessed. We just are so afraid of that expression of it. The journey with Mabel is the most vivid expression of that experience.”

Back home in London, Foy says she intends to visit the Mabels. “Whenever you drive on the motorway in the U.K., you’ve birds of prey everywhere, and now I can identify them,” she says. “I see them everywhere I go. There’s an owl out the back of my house. I feel like I’m constantly looking upwards now.”

United States President Donald Trump has said that the US has seized a sanctioned oil tanker close to the coast of Venezuela, in a move that has caused oil prices to spike and further escalates tensions with Caracas.

“We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela, large tanker, very large, largest one ever, actually, and other things are happening,” Trump said on Wednesday.

The Venezuelan government called the move an act of “international piracy”, and “blatant theft”.

This comes as the US expands its military operations in the region, where it has been carrying out air strikes on at least 21 suspected drug-trafficking vessels since September. The Trump administration has provided no evidence that these boats were carrying drugs, however.

Here is what we know about the seizure of the Venezuelan tanker:

What happened?

The US said it intercepted and seized a large oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, marking the first operation of its kind in years.

The last comparable US military seizure of a foreign tanker occurred in 2014, when US Navy SEALs boarded the Morning Glory off Cyprus as Libyan rebels attempted to sell stolen crude oil.

The Trump administration did not identify the vessel or disclose the precise location of the operation.

However, Bloomberg reported that officials had described the ship as a “stateless vessel” and said it had been docked in Venezuela.

Soon after announcing the latest operation on Wednesday, US Attorney General Pam Bondi released a video showing two helicopters approaching a vessel and armed personnel in camouflage rappelling onto its deck.

“Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations and the United States Coast Guard, with support from the Department of War, executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran,” Bondi said.

She added that “for multiple years, the oil tanker has been sanctioned by the United States due to its involvement in an illicit oil-shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organisations”.

Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, and the United States Coast Guard, with support from the Department of War, executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran. For multiple… pic.twitter.com/dNr0oAGl5x

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) December 10, 2025

Experts said the method of boarding demonstrated in the video is standard practice for US forces.

“The Navy, Coast Guard and special forces all have special training for this kind of mission, called visit, board, search, and seizure – or VBSS,” Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Al Jazeera.

“It is routine, especially for the Coast Guard. The government said it was a Coast Guard force doing the seizure, though the helicopter looks like a Navy SH-60S.”

Which vessel was seized?

According to a Reuters report, British maritime risk firm Vanguard identified the crude carrier Skipper as the vessel seized early Wednesday off Venezuela’s coast.

MarineTraffic lists the Skipper as a very large crude carrier measuring 333m (1,093 feet) in length and 60m (197 feet) in width.

The tanker was sanctioned in 2022 for allegedly helping to transport oil for the Lebanese armed group, Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, and Iran’s Quds Force.

The Skipper departed Venezuela’s main oil terminal at Jose between December 4 and 5 after loading about 1.8 million barrels of Merey crude, a heavy, high-sulphur blend produced in Venezuela.

“I assume we’re going to keep the oil,” President Trump said on Wednesday.

Before the seizure, the tanker had transferred roughly 200,000 barrels near Curacao to the Panama-flagged Neptune 6, which was headed for Cuba, according to satellite data analysed by TankerTrackers.com.

According to shipping data from Venezuela’s state-owned oil and gas company Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the vessel also transported Venezuelan crude to Asia in 2021 and 2022.

Where did the seizure take place?

The US said it seized the oil tanker in the Caribbean Sea.

US officials have said the action occurred near Venezuelan territorial waters, though they have not provided precise coordinates.

MarineTraffic data shows the vessel’s tracker still located in the Caribbean.

Is the US action legal?

Cancian noted that “seizing sanctioned items is common inside a country’s own territory. It is unusual in international waters”.

He added: “Russia has hundreds of sanctioned tankers sailing today, but they have not been boarded.”

Experts say it is unclear whether the seizure was legal, partly because many details about it have not been made public.

Still, the US could make use of various arguments to justify the seizure if needs be.

One is that the boat is regarded as stateless. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ships need “a nationality”.

The government of Guyana, Venezuela’s neighbour, said the Skipper was “falsely flying the Guyana flag”, adding that it is not registered in the country.

If a vessel flies a flag it is not registered under, or refuses to show any flag at all, states have the “right of visit”, allowing their officials to stop and inspect the ship on the high seas – essentially meaning international waters.

If doubts about a ship’s nationality remain after checking its documents, a more extensive search can follow.

In previous enforcement actions against sanctioned ships, the US has seized not the ship itself but the oil on board. In 2020, it confiscated fuel from four tankers allegedly carrying Iranian oil to Venezuela.

US law also allows the Coast Guard, which carried out this operation, to conduct searches and seizures on the high seas in order to enforce US laws, stating that it “may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas” to prevent and suppress violations.

But some legal experts argue that the US has overstepped, as it “has no jurisdiction to enforce unilateral sanctions on non-US persons outside its territory”, according to Francisco Rodriguez, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

Rodriguez said the US is relying on maritime rules for stateless vessels “as an entryway to justify enforcing US sanctions outside of US territory”.

“To the extent that the US is able to continue to do so, it could significantly increase the cost of doing business with Venezuela and precipitate a deepening of the country’s economic recession,” he warned in a CEPR article.

The US has no jurisdiction to enforce unilateral sanctions on non-US persons outside its territory. The seizure of ships in international waters to extraterritorially enforce US sanctions is a dangerous precedent and a violation of international law.

— Francisco Rodríguez (@frrodriguezc) December 10, 2025

How has Venezuela responded to the seizure?

Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry stated that “the true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been exposed”.

“It is not migration, it is not drug trafficking, it is not democracy, it is not human rights – it was always about our natural resources, our oil, our energy, the resources that belong exclusively to the Venezuelan people,” the statement said.

The ministry described the incident as an “act of piracy.”

The government added that it will appeal to “all” international bodies to denounce the incident and vowed to defend its sovereignty, natural resources, and national dignity with “absolute determination”.

“Venezuela will not allow any foreign power to attempt to take from the Venezuelan people what belongs to them by historical and constitutional right,” it said.

What are the potential consequences for Venezuela’s oil exports?

Experts say the seizure could produce short-term uncertainty for Venezuelan oil exports, largely because “this has been the first time [the United States has]… seized a shipment of Venezuelan oil”, Carlos Eduardo Pina, a Venezuelan political scientist, told Al Jazeera.

That may make shippers hesitate, though the broader impact is limited, Pina said, since “the US allows the Chevron company to continue extracting Venezuelan oil”, and US group Chevron holds a special waiver permitting it to produce and export crude despite wider sanctions.

Chevron, which operates joint ventures with PDVSA, said its operations in Venezuela remain normal and continue without disruption.

The US oil major, which is currently responsible for all Venezuelan crude exports to the US, increased shipments last month to 150,000 barrels per day (bopd), up from 128,000 bpd in October.

Inside Venezuela, Pina warned the move could spark financial panic, however: “It could instil fear, trigger a currency run… and worsen the humanitarian crisis.”

How will this affect US-Venezuela relations?

Diplomatically, Pina said he views the action as a political message to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, noting its timing – “the same day that [opposition leader] Maria Corina Machado was awarded the Nobel Prize” – and calling it “a gesture of strength… to remind that [the US is present in the Latin American region].”

Maduro has long argued that the Trump administration’s strikes on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific are not, in fact, aimed at preventing drug running, but are part of a plan to effect regime change in Venezuela. Trump has authorised CIA operations in Venezuela and has given conflicting messages about whether he would consider a land invasion.

Analysts see this latest action as part of a broader strategy to pressure the Maduro government.

“This is certainly an escalation designed to put additional pressure on the Maduro regime, causing it to fracture internally or convincing Maduro to leave,” said Cancian.

“It is part of a series of US actions such as sending the Ford to the Caribbean, authorising the CIA to move against the Maduro regime, and conducting flybys with bombers and, recently, F-18s.”

Cancian added that the broader meaning of the operation depends on what comes next.

“The purpose also depends on whether the US seizes additional tankers,” he said. “In that case, this looks like a blockade of Venezuela. Because Venezuela depends so heavily on oil revenue, it could not withstand such a blockade for long.”

CAMRYN Magness, the singer who toured with One Direction, has died aged 26 after being struck while riding an electric scooter.

Her death was confirmed this week in a statement on her official social media pages, describing her as a “radiant force”.

It read: “Our hearts are heavy as we mourn the loss of our beloved Camryn, a radiant force whose voice, coy, and bright spirit touched so many.

“Whether beneath the waves or on stage, she met life with fearless energy and boundless kindness.

“In the quiet between waves, her memory will surface—bright, bold, unforgotten.

“Rest in endless blue, our sweet girl. You are deeply loved and forever cherished.

STAR ‘MURDER’

Grammy-nominated singer, 71, stabbed to death son is arrested for ‘murder’

SHOCK LOSS

Jimmy Neutron actor Jeff Garcia dead at 50 after ‘being taken off life support’

“Please keep her family and friends in prayer as they navigate this difficult time. Camryn will live on in our hearts forever.”

Camryn died last Friday after being struck in Fort Myers, Florida, according to multiple reports.

Born in Denver, Colorado, in 1999, she began her career at eight, posting YouTube videos that led to a record deal and a move to Los Angeles.

Her debut single Wait and See featured in the 2011 film Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer.

She toured with Cody Simpson and Greyson Chance in 2011 before joining One Direction as a support act for seven US dates on their 2012 Up All Night Tour.

The band then brought her back for 63 shows on their 2013 Take Me Home Tour.

Reflecting on that breakthrough, she previously told Teen Vogue: “Going into the tour, I was an unknown artist.

“It’s a great feeling to be walking around and someone coming up to me and saying, ‘Hey, you did so well!’. It was really exciting for me when that happened for the first time.”

Camryn later supported Fifth Harmony and released a run of singles, along with her 2017 album Glow.

Her official obituary described her as “beloved” as a “daughter, sister, fiancée, granddaughter, and friend” who died “far too young, and long before her light was ever meant to leave this world”.

It remembered her as a “vibrant, fearless, and deeply loved young woman whose compassion, humour, and bright spirit touched every person blessed to know her.”

It added: “A gifted performer, Camryn’s voice and music were extensions of her soul.

“Whether she was on a stage, at a family gathering, or sharing a song with someone who needed it, Camryn’s music was a reflection of her heart, her courage, and her endless creativity.”

Camryn Magness is survived by her parents, Sarah and Gary; siblings Chelsea and Cable; and her fiancée, Christian.

More to follow… For the latest news on this story keep checking back at The Sun Online

Thesun.co.uk is your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures and must-see video.

Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/thesun and follow us from our main Twitter account at @TheSun.

The US has rolled back a series of restrictive economic sanctions put in place during the rule of Bashar al-Assad.

The United States House of Representatives has voted forward a bill that would end the restrictive Caesar Act sanctions on Syria, originally imposed during the rule of former leader Bashar al-Assad.

The bid to repeal the sanctions was passed on Wednesday as part of a larger defence spending package, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA.

“With this NDAA, as many know, we are repealing sanctions on Syria that were placed there because of Bashar al-Assad and the torture of his people,” Representative Brian Mast of Florida said. “We’re giving Syria a chance to chart a post-Assad future.”

Mast had previously been opposed to dropping the sanctions. In his statement on the House floor on Wednesday, he warned that, under the bill, the White House could “reimpose sanctions if the president views it necessary”.

The bill now heads to the Senate and is expected to be voted on before the end of the year.

If passed, the NDAA would repeal the 2019 Caesar Act, which sanctioned the Syrian government for war crimes during the country’s 13-year-long civil war.

It would also require the White House to issue frequent reports confirming that Syria’s new government is combating Islamist fighters and upholding the rights of religious and ethnic minorities.

Human rights advocates have welcomed the easing of heavy sanctions that the US and other Western countries imposed on Syria during the war.

They argue that lifting those economic restrictions will aid Syria’s path towards economic recovery after years of devastation.

The Caesar Act was signed into law during President Donald Trump’s first term.

But in December 2024, shortly before Trump returned to office for a second term, rebel forces toppled al-Assad’s government, sending the former leader fleeing to Russia.

Trump has since removed many sanctions on Syria and met with President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who led the push that ousted al-Assad.

But some sanctions can only be removed by Congress, a step that Trump has encouraged lawmakers to take.

This month, Syrians celebrated the one-year anniversary of al-Assad’s overthrow with fireworks, prayer and public displays of pride. But the country continues to face challenges as it recovers from the destruction and damage wrought by the war.

Syrian officials have urged the repeal of remaining sanctions, saying that it is necessary to give the country a fighting chance at economic stability and improvement.

Syrian central bank Governor Abdulkader Husrieh called US sanctions relief a “miracle” in an interview with the news service Reuters last week.

The United Nations Security Council also voted to remove sanctions on al-Sharaa and Interior Minister Anas Khattab, who were previously on a list of individuals linked to ISIL (ISIS) and al-Qaeda.

Simon Cowell’s new Netflix documentary, the Next Act, follows the music mogul – and his wife, Lauren – as the Britain’s Got Talent star looks for the next big boyband

Simon Cowell has admitted he wanted to pull the plug on his new Netflix documentary, The Next Act, which drops on the streaming platform today.

Seven years after The X Factor last aired, the music mogul, 66, is back with fans offering a behind-the-scenes look as he puts together a new band. The show features an in-depth look at how the music industry has changed – as well as fly-on-the wall scenes with Simon’s wife Lauren.

In a sneak peak of the show, Lauren, who is mum to Simon’s son, Eric, 10, warns the star he ‘worries too much’ as well as telling her partner of 11 years: “As long as I’m part of the journey” as Simon excitedly announces The Next Act’s ambitious format.

READ MORE: GMB’s Richard Madeley interrupts live broadcast to mark co-star’s milestoneREAD MORE: Strictly Come Dancing’s Shirley Ballas lays feelings bare after Lewis Cope’s shock axe

Admitting he almost abandoned the project, which sees the star travelling around the country trying to find the singers he needs, he told Good Morning Britain today: “I almost pulled the plug.” Explaining his fears for the format of the show, he continued: “Things have changed so much. These boys are used to making music in their bedroom and now they’re in a live audition.”

GMB host, Susana Reid, praised Lauren for taking part in the show and “opening the doors” to the notoriously private couple’s relationship.

In one scene from the show, the mum-of-two accuses Simon of “moaning” before dramatically exiting in a heated moment. In the middle of auditioning potential band members, Simon takes a breather in episode two – resorting to an IV vitamin drip to rejuvenate his energy levels.

His partner, Lauren, expresses her concerns about his risk of “burnout” to the camera crew while also discussing her son Adam, who lives overseas.

Begging Lauren not to make him go to the whole of Adam’s graduation, Simon says: “Tell me about the weekend. I don’t have to be there for the whole graduation, do I?”

Lauren retorts: “Babe, you’re doing one thing for me which is going to my son’s high school graduation. Yes, you have to be there, OK? I mean, it’s not going to be long.

“Oh it is Lauren. They go on for hours”, Simon interjects as Lauren counters: “Babe, it’s one grade. It’s not like it’s a whole school. You’re his stepfather and he’s so proud of you. He wants to like, you know, show you off. He’s really excited for you to be there.”

Clearly emotional, Lauren concludes: “You make me feel bad about the graduation. You’ve known about this for f*****g five years. Now you’re making me feel like you don’t want to go. Then don’t go.

“You’re moaning about everything. Do whatever you want.”

* The Next Act is available on Netflix from December 10

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Dec. 9 (UPI) — KISS co-founder Gene Simmons and others testified for and against the proposed American Music Fairness Act during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing Tuesday in Washington.

Simmons told the Senate Judiciary Intellectual Property Subcommittee that he supports the bill that would force AM/FM radio stations to pay royalties to the copyright holders of respective works played, according to Roll Call.

“It looks like a small issue [when] there are wars going on and everything,” Simmons said. “But our emissaries to the world are Elvis and Frank Sinatra.”

He said artists such as Elvis, Sinatra and Bing Crosby are treated “worse than slaves” by radio broadcasters.

“Slaves get food and water,” Simmons said. “Elvis and Bing Crosby and Sinatra got nothing for their performance.”

Also testifying in support of the proposed act was Michael Huppe, president and chief executive officer of SoundExchange, which helps music creators to collect royalties whenever their music is played internationally.

He said radio corporations made $250 billion in ad revenue over the past 16 years, while recording artists “were paid exactly zero.”

Broadcasters are using “other people’s property” to make money without paying them, and the United States is the only country that does not pay performers when they music is played on radio, Huppe said, adding that “even Russia and China pay.”

He said online streaming services pay recording artists, but not AM/FM stations.

Broadcasters once argued that radio promoted artists and new music, Huppe explained, but that no longer is the case.

He said most people now are exposed to new music online and via social platforms, such as TikTok and YouTube.

“The days of hearing a song on the radio and going out and buying a CD or an album at a store are long gone,” Huppe told the subcommittee.

Because the United States does not require royalty payments when songs are played on AM/FM radio, foreign governments do not pay royalties to U.S.-based artists.

Instead, he said nations like France collect royalties on U.S.-made music from French broadcasters and give them to French musical artists.

All other music delivery platforms pay artists, but AM/FM does not despite making nearly $14 billion in advertising last year from playing music, Huppe explained.

Broadcast radio stations pay DJs, talk show radio hosts and artists when the same programming is paid online, but not when they are played on analog broadcasts and AM/FM radio.

“No legitimate business or policy reason can justify that difference,” he said.

Opposing the proposed American Music Fairness Act, Henry Hinton, president of Inner Banks Media and longtime talk radio host in North Carolina, said the nation’s more than 5,100 free radio stations would suffer harm if it became law.

“I know firsthand the value and collaborative partnership of our stations and what we have with recording artists,” Hinton said, “but make no mistake: I also know firsthand that a new performance royalty imposed on local radio will create harm for stations, listeners and these very same artists.”

He called broadcast radio a “uniquely free service” that serves local communities “in a way that no other media can.”

Examples include hosting radiothons to raise money for local causes and providing “entertainment, inspiration and information,” including during emergencies and natural disasters.

Radio stations inform people of approaching danger and stay on the air, which at times is the only means of communication between emergency services personnel and the general public.

The Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing lasted about 1.5 hours.