numbers

Jason Bateman could snag limited series Emmy nominations for his lead role as a deep-in-debt barman on Netflix’s “Black Rabbit” and supporting role as a sexually adventurous weatherman on HBO’s “DTF St. Louis.” Drawing more than one nomination in a year has been the norm for Bateman.

14

Bateman’s previous Emmy nominations encompass acting, directing and producing.

1

His lone Emmy win came in 2019, for directing an episode of his Netflix crime drama “Ozark.”

21

The former child actor’s first nomination, as lead of the Fox (later Netflix) comedy “Arrested Development,” came in 2005. Bateman’s adult “comeback” has lasted 21 years and counting.

4

Times he has received multiple nominations in a year, most often for acting in, directing and producing “Ozark.”

2

“Black Rabbit” and “DTF St. Louis” would mark his second time receiving acting nominations for different shows in the same year.

2020

Bateman competed for drama lead for “Ozark” and guest actor for HBO’s “The Outsider.”

0-for-7

Bateman is overdue for an acting Emmy. His brilliant straight-man work in “Arrested Development” lost out to Emmy juggernauts Tony Shalhoub (“Monk”) in 2005 and Jim Parsons (“The Big Bang Theory”) in 2013.

3-for-13

The Actor Awards have been kinder: Bateman won three lead actor statuettes for “Ozark.”

2026

The guilds already have spoken on “Black Rabbit,” with Bateman receiving Actor, DGA and PGA nominations.

5

Also a producer on “DTF St. Louis,” Bateman has a shot at five Emmy nominations this year.

Immediately after Proposition 8 passed, many who supported same-sex marriage tried to make sense of the results. A set of assumptions gained wide acceptance. Some are correct. Most, however, are just plain wrong. And it’s crucial that we know what happened in the last election before launching another attempt to legalize marriage for all.

I recently headed a team that analyzed data from polls conducted by the No on 8 campaign during the run-up to the election. Our analysis sheds new light on what fueled the Proposition 8 victory.

One big question after the election: Who moved? Six weeks before the vote, Proposition 8 was too close to call. But in the final weeks, supporters pulled ahead, and by election day, the outcome was all but certain.

After the election, a misleading finding from exit polls led many to blame African Americans for the loss. But in our new analysis, it appears that African Americans’ views were relatively stable. True, a majority of African Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but that was true at the beginning and at the end of the campaign; few changed their minds in the closing weeks.

The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home — many of them white Democrats.

The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents.

Perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise. The Yes on 8 campaign targeted parents in its TV ads. “Mom! Guess what I learned in school today!” were the cheery-frightening first words of the supporters’ most-broadcast ad. They emerged from the mouth of a young girl who had supposedly just learned that she could marry a female when she grew up.

Among the array of untrue ideas that parents could easily take away: that impressionable kids would be indoctrinated; that they would learn about gay sex; that they would be more likely to become gay; and that they might choose to be gay. California voters, depending on where they lived in the state, were exposed to the Yes on 8 ads 20 to 40 times.

The lesson: It’s not enough to make the case for same-sex marriage. It’s also important to arm voters — particularly parents — against an inevitable propaganda attack. And it’s crucial to rebut lies so parents don’t panic.

Another misconception was that those who voted for Proposition 8 were motivated by hate. This does not describe most of the 687,000 who changed their minds in the closing weeks. After all, they supported same-sex marriage before the opposition peeled them away. Yes, they turned out to be susceptible to an appeal based on anti-gay prejudice. But they were frightened by misinformation. No on 8’s one TV ad that directly responded to the fear-mongering helped assuage some of the fear, but it was too little, too late.

One final false assumption by same-sex marriage supporters was that the election was so close that it will be easy to pass same-sex marriage the next time out.

It’s true that the official election results — 52% to 48% — appeared quite close. But the truth is more complicated. The data we analyzed show that the No on 8 campaign benefitted from voter confusion.

Polling suggests that half a million people who opposed same-sex marriage mistakenly voted against the proposition. They were confused by the idea that a “no” vote was actually a vote for gay marriage. This “wrong-way voting” affected both sides, but overwhelmingly it helped the “no” side. Our analysis suggests that the division among California voters on same-sex marriage at the time of Proposition 8 was actually 54% to 46% — not so close. We are actually 1 million votes away from being able to reverse Proposition 8.

This analysis makes absolutely clear that supporters of same-sex marriage have a lot of work to do before we return to the ballot. But that work is already underway, and now real knowledge can underpin our efforts.

David Fleischer heads the LGBT mentoring project, which is now part of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center’s new leadership program Learn Act Build. The project’s full report and data can be viewed at prop8report.org.

Frenchman Olivier Assayas’ canvas is either highly personal (“Suspended Time”) or deliriously global (“Carlos”). He can be hard to pin down as a filmmaker, except when the material does the restraining for him, as the intermittently arresting but overplayed piece of political theater “The Wizard of the Kremlin” proves.

Operating off the same-named novel by Giuliano da Empoli, about a behind-the-scenes manipulator named Vadim Baranov helping to orchestrate Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s rise to power, Assayas and co-screenwriter-journalist Emmanuel Carrère have fashioned a whirlwind shadow biopic of 21st century tsardom that blends the real story (Jude Law is Putin) and an invented one (Paul Dano is Baranov) with all the wisdom-in-hindsight energy of an old-school epic dramatizing How Things Came to Be.

The problem, though, from its clichéd interview framing (Jeffrey Wright plays an American journalist visiting the retired Baranov at his estate) to the tediously narrated flashback structure, is that the movie never lives and breathes inside its stitched-together moments, preferring to be a relentless, country-hopping talkfest in which characters opine as if fully aware of the consequential era they’re in, fully ready to explain it.

That doesn’t apply to a scarily good Law, who makes the most of a curiously underwritten featured-player part. When given center stage, his Putin is commanding, reminding us of the real sinister power in the room. But everyone else in “The Wizard of the Kremlin” is mouthpiece first, character second. Post-Cold War Russia’s swerve away from clunky democracy is as fascinating a turn of events as geopolitics gets, but it’s been reduced to an extended lecture on power, divvied up into timeline hits (from Yeltsin’s nascent kleptocracy to Putin’s violent fearmongering) and speaking parts made of aphorisms and commentary. (“If you don’t grab power, power grabs you” or “Russia has always needed a strongman,” etc.)

The Zelig-like Baranov character — understood to be a liberalized avatar for inner circle strategist Vladislav Surkov — is an interesting mix of cynicism and opportunity. He goes from being an idealist directing avant-garde theater to honing his manipulation chops making reality TV and eventually helping a savvy business magnate (Will Keen as Boris Berezovsky) fashion Putin into a palatable, malleable politician for an electorate hungry for stability. But when the ex-spymaster’s cold lust to return Russia to imperial glory becomes vengeful and warlike, Baranov’s principles give way to a ruthless impulse.

If only the sorely miscast Dano had the weight to sell this guided tour of corruption — a role that could have been in the vein of one of Scorsese’s charismatic motormouth narrators. Affectedly hushed and conspiratorial in nearly every scene, his accent an afterthought, the normally evocative actor comes off more like a one-note Bond villain in training than someone whose smarts and complexities are meant to intrigue. There’s also little chemistry in his scenes with Alicia Vikander, herself struggling to find dimension in a trophy girlfriend, whose greatest skill in an ever-changing Russia seems to be as an oligarch whisperer.

As “Wizard” barrels along, content to be aimlessly scornful and sloppy, it’s hard not to be reminded of Assayas’ much more successfully finessed “Carlos” and how this effort feels like a truncated miniseries, trimmed of nuance and emotion. It’s sketched out for cynical skimming rather than deeper psychological consideration.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is drawing down thousands of troops in Europe by canceling deployments to Poland and Germany as opposed to yanking forces already stationed there, U.S. officials say, as President Trump has tussled with allies over the Iran war and called for changes.

Several U.S. officials confirmed that 4,000 troops from the Army’s 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division were no longer en route to Poland this week. The Trump administration had previously said it was cutting U.S. forces only in Germany, and the decision spurred questions and criticism in both Warsaw and Washington.

Two officials told the Associated Press that the deployments were canceled after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed a memo directing the Joint Chiefs of Staff to move a brigade combat team out of Europe. One of them said the choice of which unit was left to military leaders.

Besides the Army combat team based in Fort Hood, Texas, the memo also led to the cancellation of an upcoming deployment to Germany of a battalion trained in firing long-range rockets and missiles, according to the two officials, who like the others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations.

Three U.S. officials said the changes were part of an effort to comply with a presidential order issued at the beginning of May to reduce the number of troops in Europe by about 5,000. The reasoning does not appear to have been well communicated because others based in Europe said they did not know if the halted deployment to Poland was part of the previously announced reduction.

Trump and the Pentagon have said in recent weeks that they were cutting at least 5,000 troops to Germany after Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the U.S. was being “humiliated” by the Iranian leadership and criticized Washington’s lack of strategy in the war.

The drawdown reflects a growing rift between the administration and traditional European allies, with the U.S. leader repeatedly criticizing fellow NATO members for a lack of support for the Iran war.

Polish officials on Friday insisted that the U.S. withdrawal was not targeted directly at Poland but was a consequence of Trump’s decision to reduce the number of troops in Germany.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said he “received assurances” that the decision was of a logistical nature and said it does not directly affect deterrence capabilities and Poland’s security.

Military officials say the decision to halt unit to Poland made recently

Joel Valdez, a Pentagon spokesman, said, “the decision to withdraw troops follows a comprehensive, multilayered process” and he argued that it was “not an unexpected, last-minute decision.”

Speaking to Congress in a hearing Friday, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and Gen. Christopher LaNeve, the Army’s chief of staff, told lawmakers that discussions around the halted deployment occurred over the last two weeks but noted the decision itself was made in the last couple days.

Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said he spoke with Polish officials on Thursday and they noted they were “blindsided.”

The move also left many U.S. military personnel in Europe in the dark about how the Trump administration was reducing forces. A U.S. official based in Europe said a meeting was called with 20 minutes’ notice on Monday to discuss the cancellation of the deployment to Poland.

At that time, troops had already been sent to Poland and some, still in the U.S., were told shortly before departure not to travel to the airport, that official said. Another official said most of the Army unit’s equipment had already made it to Europe and was sitting in ports.

Change to troop deployment to Poland draws bipartisan criticism

The reductions drew criticism from Democratic and Republican lawmakers about the move sending the wrong signal both to allies and Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose forces this week have launched one of the deadliest attacks on the Ukrainian capital in the 4-year-old war.

At the House Armed Services Committee hearing Friday, LaNeve said he worked with U.S. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, commander in Europe of both U.S. and NATO forces, after Grynkewich received the instructions for the force reduction.

“I’ve worked with him in close consultation of what that force unit would be, and it made the most sense for that brigade to not do its deployment in theater,” LaNeve said.

Bacon called the decision “reprehensible” and said it was “an embarrassment to our country what we just did to Poland.”

Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, who chairs the committee, said the military is required to consult with lawmakers and that did not happen.

“So we don’t know what’s going on here,” Rogers said. “But I can just tell you we’re not happy with what’s being talked about.”

A State Department official said Friday at a security conference in Tallinn, Estonia, that the U.S. reductions in Europe were “right there in black and white” but also noted that “the U.S. isn’t going anywhere.”

“We’ll continue to work with the Pentagon and work with our partners to make sure we get the right fit and right mix of what’s happening here on the ground,” said Thomas G. DiNanno, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

NATO says the change in Poland won’t affect defense

With the halted deployments, the U.S. military presence in Europe will now be at pre-2022 levels, before Russia commenced its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, one U.S. official said.

European countries have been bracing for a U.S. reduction since Trump returned to the White House, with the administration warning that Europe would have to look after its own security, including Ukraine’s, in the future.

A NATO official said the U.S. decision to cancel its rotational deployment to Poland would not impact NATO’s deterrence and defense plans. Canada and Germany have increased their presence on the alliance’s eastern flank, which contributes to NATO’s overall strength, the official said, insisting on anonymity in line with NATO regulations.

Ben Hodges, former commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, said the move “reinforces the perception that the United States just does things without consultation with allies,” which ultimately “damages cohesion inside the alliance.” The decision would in the long run harm the U.S. defense industry as it reduces the trust of partners, he said.

Around 10,000 U.S. troops are typically stationed in Poland, the majority of them present in the country on a rotational basis. Only about 300 troops are permanently stationed in the country, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service.

Polish officials had hoped they would be spared from any cuts as Poland spends the most in NATO on defense as a proportion of its economy — around 4.7% in 2025. Hegseth has called it a “model ally” in NATO for spending so much on defense.

When Poland’s conservative president, Karol Nawrocki, visited the White House in September, Trump said he didn’t intend to pull U.S. troops out of Poland. “We’ll put more there if they want,” Trump said at the time.

Toropin, Burrows, Finley and Ciobanu write for the Associated Press. Burrows reported from Tallinn, Estonia, and Ciobanu from Warsaw.