Features
Former Winnipegger Jonas Chernick scores with his latest film: “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF”
By BERNIE BELLAN
When I was contacted recently by ex-Winnipegger Jonas Chernick, who asked me whether I’d be interested in seeing a screener for a new movie he’d produced and starred in, I immediately said “yes”.
The reason is that I’ve been writing about Jonas’s career for years now – beginning with his very successful “My Awkward Sexual Adventure” (2012), about which I’ve always been fascinated by the odd fact that a Lithuaianian version of that fim known as ‘Nepatyres” (or “Inexperienced”) opened to the third highest box office of all time n that country – of all places.
Jonas Chernick is someone who has deep Winnipeg roots. A graduate of Grant Park High School, Jonas used to write a column about floor hockey for this paper when he was the commissioner of the Jewish Student Association Floor Hockey League. As well, while he was a student Jonas was very involved with a number of different Jewish organizations, including Camp Massad and BBYO. Later, he was also employed by the Rady Centre.
Jonas honed his acting chops on the stage of the Winnipeg Jewish Theatre, where he performed in four different productions over the years. After leaving Winnipeg, Jonas went on to on to fashion a successful career in both television and movies and, in recent years, he has expanded his repertoire to include not only appearing in productions, but writing and producing them as well.
Jonas’s first major success as a writer and producer came in 2012 with, as I noted, “My Awkward Sexual Adventure”.
In 2016 Jonas launched another film which he wrote and produced – this one set in Manitoba, titled “Borealis”. That movie, as did “Sexual Adventure”, reaped quite a few awards and was a hit on the festival circuit. When I interviewed Jonas back in 2016, he mentioned that he had various irons in the fire, but he was particularly keen on a project for which he hoped to find financing – something, he admitted, is always a difficult process when it comes to producing a movie.
In any event, Jonas was able to put together the financing to produce what is now his most recent film, titled “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF”. In our next issue we’ll have a full-length interview with Jonas Chernick, but in the meantime I wanted to offer readers a preview of “James”, which is slated to be released across Canada on iTunes and Video on Demand on Shaw, Bell, and Rogers on April 3.
“JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF” is billed as a “sci-fi rom com” (science fiction romantic comedy). It’s a charming story about an unabashed science nerd by the name of James – played by Jonas, who is obsessed with time travel. James is actually a brilliant theoretical physicist and his delving into a subject that has fascinated individuals ever since H.G. Wells’ epic novel, The Time Machine, is grounded firmly in actual science (or so the notes accompanying publicity for this film say. Who am I to judge whether that’s at all true or not.)
At the same though that James pursues his dream of time travel, he also makes a shambles of his personal life. Anyone who has seen Jonas Chernick in either “Sexual Adventure” or “Borealis”, or a television series in which he also recently appeared, titled “The Best Laid Plans”, would know that Jonas has been type casting himself as a sweet, but nerdy nebbish who, despite his best attempts, always seems to screw up his relationships – whether romantic or familial.
This holds true for James in “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF”, as James consistently screws things up with the one woman for whom he holds a torch, Courtney (played by Cleopatra Coleman), as well as with his potty-mouthed sister, Meredith (played by Tommie-Amber Pirie).
Things are not going well for James until the sudden arrival of a character who reveals himself to be James’ future self, although his name is not James, but “Jimmy”.
Jimmy is played by Daniel Stern, probably best known for his roles in the two “Home Alone” movies. And, for anyone who hasn’t seen Daniel Stern in a while, if you didn’t know it was Daniel Stern playing the role, you might say to yourself: “Gee, that guy looks familiar, but I just can’t place him.”
I have to admit that before writing this particular article, I took a look at what other reviewers have had to say about “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF”. The consensus seems to be that Daniel Stern steals the movie. In fact, he’s been nominated for a 2020 Canadian Screen Award as Best Supporting Actor (as has the movie itself for Best Original Screenplay).
Stern invests his role with a crazy kind of energy. When I was corresponding with Jonas Chernick about the film I suggested that the only other actor who I could see playing the role of Jimmy might have been Jeff Bridges.
In production notes accompanying release of the film, how Stern came to prepare himself for the role of Jimmy provides some fascinating insight into how certain actors brace a role: “What helped Stern truly get into the character of Jimmy came via a rather unusual, surprising request regarding his accommodations while in production. Most Hollywood stars would generally expect a nice multi-starred hotel room or luxury apartment, but not Stern.
“As Chernick explains, ‘He requested a rustic cabin in the woods. We found one and it was so remote that it was forty minutes outside of town, off the highway and down a labyrinth of dirt roads. It was a cabin with a wood burning stove, water pumped in from the lake, no cell service and only mosquitoes for company. At first we thought, “Oh great! He’s crazy”.’
“But it was all part of Stern’s master plan. ‘Luckily we realized he chose that location for the character. Jimmy lived in isolation for twelve years and lost connection with the world. He felt that returning to this cabin in the woods every night after shooting and waking up there would put him in this headspace,’ added Chernick.”
Since “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF” is supposedly a story of a younger person meeting an older version of himself, one might expect there to be at least a physical resemblance between the two characters. But, in this movie at least, that notion is quickly dispensed with, as there is nothing at all similar in the appearance of Jonas Chernick and Daniel Stern. (There is an ongoing joke about them having the same looking penis – and some reviewers have dismissed that as puerile dialogue, but the way Jimmy explains it to James – it actually makes sense. It has to do with physical bodies being stretched through time travel, but not losing certain identifying characteristics.)
As James confronts the dilemma posed to him by Jimmy: either abandon his quest for time travel and solidify his relationship with the lovely Courtney or continue in his pursuit and end up like Jimmy, there is a resolution to this dilemma advanced in the film though that helps to explain how, what on the surface appears to be an intractable problem that can’t be solved – but remember, this is just a movie, not a scientifically provable hypothesis.
I might note that one reviewer dismissed “JAMES VS. HIS FUTURE SELF” as an attempt to harken back to rom-coms of an earlier period. But hey, I liked a lot of those rom coms – as did a lot of audiences back then.
And Jonas Chernick has established himself as an expert at playing nerdy but lovable characters. While Daniel Stern certainly dominates the screen when he appears in this movie, it’s Jonas’s soulful gaze that makes you cheer for him. You just wish that he wouldn’t be so blind as not to see how the beautiful Courtney is giving him every possible signal that she’s highly available to him – and, when he finally gets his shot, he flubs it.
Now, that’s what we need more of in movies: Guys who miss every opportunity to score when it’s presented to them on a silver platter. A lot of males watching this movie will certainly be able to relate to that – and no doubt women will be wishing they themselves could have a shot at seducing that oh-so-innocent looking Jonas Chernick.
Watch the trailer for the film here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi8oOuwsvdo
We will have a full-length interview with Jonas Chernick in our April 1 issue – and on this website.
Features
So, what’s the deal with the honey scene in ‘Marty Supreme?’
By Olivia Haynie December 29, 2025 This story was originally published in the Forward. Click here to get the Forward’s free email newsletters delivered to your inbox.
There are a lot of jarring scenes in Marty Supreme, Josh Safdie’s movie about a young Jew in the 1950s willing to do anything to secure his spot in table tennis history. There’s the one where Marty (Timothée Chalamet) gets spanked with a ping-pong paddle; there’s the one where a gas station explodes. And the one where Marty, naked in a bathtub, falls through the floor of a cheap motel. But the one that everybody online seems to be talking about is a flashback of an Auschwitz story told by Marty’s friend and fellow ping-ponger Béla Kletzki (Géza Röhrig, best known for his role as a Sonderkommando in Son of Saul).
Kletzki tells the unsympathetic ink tycoon Milton Rockwell (Kevin O’Leary) about how the Nazis, impressed by his table tennis skills, spared his life and recruited him to disarm bombs. One day, while grappling with a bomb in the woods, Kletzki stumbled across a honeycomb. He smeared the honey across his body and returned to the camp, where he let his fellow prisoners lick it off his body. The scene is a sensory nightmare, primarily shot in close-ups of wet tongues licking sticky honey off Kletzki’s hairy body. For some, it was also … funny?
Many have reported that the scene has been triggering a lot of laughter in their theaters. My audience in Wilmington, North Carolina, certainly had a good chuckle — with the exception of my mother, who instantly started sobbing. I sat in stunned silence, unsure at first what to make of the sharp turn the film had suddenly taken. One post on X that got nearly 6,000 likes admonished Safdie for his “insane Holocaust joke.” Many users replied that the scene was in no way meant to be funny, with one even calling it “the most sincere scene in the whole movie.”
For me, the scene shows the sheer desperation of those in the concentration camps, as well as the self-sacrifice that was essential to survival. And yet many have interpreted it as merely shock humor.
Laughter could be understood as an inevitable reaction to discomfort and shock at a scene that feels so out of place in what has, up to that point, been a pretty comedic film. The story is sandwiched between Marty’s humorous attempts to embarrass Rockwell and seduce his wife. Viewers may have mistaken the scene as a joke since the film’s opening credits sequence of sperm swimming through fallopian tubes gives the impression you will be watching a comedy interspersed with some tense ping-pong playing.
The reaction could also be part of what some in the movie theater industry are calling the “laugh epidemic.” In The New York Times, Marie Solis explored the inappropriate laughter in movie theaters that seems to be increasingly common. The rise of meme culture and the dissolution of clear genres (Marty Supreme could be categorized as somewhere between drama and comedy), she writes, have primed audiences to laugh at moments that may not have been meant to be funny.
The audience’s inability to process the honey scene as sincere may also be a sign of a society that has become more disconnected from the traumas of the past. It would not be the first time that people, unable to comprehend the horrors of the Holocaust, have instead derided the tales of abuse as pure fiction. But Kletzki’s story is based on the real experiences of Alojzy Ehrlich, a ping-pong player imprisoned at Auschwitz. The scene is not supposed to be humorous trauma porn — Safdie has called it a “beautiful story” about the “camaraderie” found within the camps. It also serves as an important reminder of all that Marty is fighting for.
The events of the film take place only seven years after the Holocaust, and the macabre honey imagery encapsulates the dehumanization the Jews experienced. Marty is motivated not just by a desire to prove himself as an athlete and rise above what his uncle and mother expect of him, but above what the world expects of him as a Jew. His drive to reclaim Jewish pride is further underscored when he brings back a piece of an Egyptian pyramid to his mother, telling her, “We built this.”
Without understanding this background, the honey scene will come off as out of place and ridiculous. And the lengths Marty is willing to go to to make something of himself cannot be fully appreciated. The film’s description on the review-app Letterboxd says Marty Supreme is about one man who “goes to hell and back in pursuit of greatness.” But behind Marty is the story of a whole people who have gone through hell; they too are trying to find their way back.
Olivia Haynie is an editorial fellow at the Forward.
This story was originally published on the Forward.
Features
Paghahambing ng One-on-One Matches at Multiplayer Challenges sa Pusoy in English
Ang Pusoy, na kilala din bilang Chinese Poker, ay patuloy na sumisikat sa buong mundo, kumukuha ng interes ng mga manlalaro mula sa iba’t ibang bansa. Ang mga online platforms ay nagpapadali sa pag-access nito. Ang online version nito ay lubos na nagpasigla ng interes sa mga baguhan at casual players, na nagdulot ng diskusyon kung alin ang mas madali: ang paglalaro ng Pusoy one-on-one o sa multiplayer settings.
Habang nailipat sa digital platforms ang Pusoy, napakahalaga na maunawaan ang mga format nito upang mapahusay ang karanasan sa laro. Malaking epekto ang bilang ng mga kalaban pagdating sa istilo ng laro, antas ng kahirapan, at ang ganap na gameplay dynamics. Ang mga platforms tulad ng GameZone ay nagbibigay ng angkop na espasyo para sa mga manlalaro na masubukan ang parehong one-on-one at multiplayer Pusoy, na akma para sa iba’t ibang klase ng players depende sa kanilang kasanayan at kagustuhan.
Mga Bentahe ng One-on-One Pusoy
Simpleng Gameplay
Sa one-on-one Pusoy in English, dalawa lang ang naglalaban—isang manlalaro at isang kalaban. Dahil dito, mas madali ang bawat laban. Ang pokus ng mga manlalaro ay nakatuon lamang sa kanilang sariling 13 cards at sa mga galaw ng kalaban, kaya’t nababawasan ang pagiging komplikado.
Para sa mga baguhan, ideal ang one-on-one matches upang:
- Sanayin ang tamang pagsasaayos ng cards.
- Matutunan ang tamang ranggo ng bawat kamay.
- Magsanay na maiwasan ang mag-foul sa laro.
Ang simpleng gameplay ay nagbibigay ng matibay na pundasyon para sa mas kumplikadong karanasan sa multiplayer matches.
Mga Estratehiya mula sa Pagmamasid
Sa one-on-one matches, mas madaling maunawaan ang istilo ng kalaban dahil limitado lamang ang galaw na kailangan sundan. Maaari mong obserbahan ang mga sumusunod na patterns:
- Konserbatibong pagkakaayos o agresibong strategy.
- Madalas na pagkakamali o overconfidence.
- Labis na pagtuon sa isang grupo ng cards.
Dahil dito, nagkakaroon ng pagkakataon ang mga manlalaro na isaayos ang kanilang estratehiya upang mas epektibong maka-responde sa galaw ng kalaban, partikular kung maglalaro sa competitive platforms tulad ng GameZone.
Mas Mababang Pressure
Dahil one-on-one lamang ang laban, mababawasan ang mental at emotional stress. Walang ibang kalaban na makaka-distract, na nagbibigay ng pagkakataon para sa mga baguhan na matuto nang walang matinding parusa sa kanilang mga pagkakamali. Nagiging stepping stone ito patungo sa mas dynamic na multiplayer matches.
Ang Hamon ng Multiplayer Pusoy
Mas Komplikado at Mas Malalim na Gameplay
Sa Multiplayer Pusoy, madaragdagan ang bilang ng kalaban, kaya mas nagiging komplikado ang laro. Kailangan kalkulahin ng bawat manlalaro ang galaw ng maraming tao at ang pagkakaayos nila ng cards.
Ang ilang hamon ng multiplayer ay:
- Pagbabalanse ng lakas ng cards sa tatlong grupo.
- Pag-iwas sa labis na peligro habang nagiging kompetitibo.
- Pagtatagumpayan ang lahat ng kalaban nang sabay-sabay.
Ang ganitong klase ng gameplay ay nangangailangan ng maingat na pagpaplano, prediksyon, at strategic na pasensiya.
Mas Malakas na Mental Pressure
Mas mataas ang psychological demand sa multiplayer, dahil mabilis ang galawan at mas mahirap manatiling kalmado sa gitna ng mas maraming kalaban. Kabilang dito ang:
- Bilisan ang pagdedesisyon kahit under pressure.
- Paano mananatiling focused sa gitna ng mga distractions.
- Pagkakaroon ng emosyonal na kontrol matapos ang sunod-sunod na talo.
Mas exciting ito para sa mga manlalarong gusto ng matinding hamon at pagmamalasakit sa estratehiya.
GameZone: Ang Bagong Tahanan ng Modern Pusoy
Ang GameZone online ay isang kahanga-hangang platform para sa mga naglalaro ng Pusoy in English. Nagbibigay ito ng opsyon para sa parehong one-on-one at multiplayer matches, akma para sa kahit anong antas ng kasanayan.
Mga feature ng GameZone:
- Madaling English interface para sa user-friendly na gameplay.
- Real-player matches imbes na kalaban ay bots.
- Mga tool para sa responsible play, tulad ng time reminder at spending limits.
Pagtatagal ng Pamanang Pusoy
Ang Pusoy card game in English ay nagpalawak ng abot nito sa mas maraming players mula sa iba’t ibang bahagi ng mundo habang pinapanatili ang tradisyunal nitong charm. Sa pamamagitan ng mga modernong platform tulad ng GameZone, mananatiling buhay at progresibo ang Pusoy, nakakabighani pa rin sa lahat ng antas ng manlalaro—mula sa casual enjoyment hanggang sa competitive challenges.
Mula sa maingat na pag-aayos ng mga cards hanggang sa pag-master ng estratehiya, ang Pusoy ay isang laro na nananatiling relevant habang ipinapakita ang masalimuot nitong gameplay dynamics na puno ng kultura at inobasyon.
Features
Rob Reiner asked the big questions. His death leaves us searching for answers.
Can men and women just be friends? Can you be in the revenge business too long? Why don’t you just make 10 louder and have that be the top number on your amp?
All are questions Rob Reiner sought to answer. In the wake of his and his wife’s unexpected deaths, which are being investigated as homicides, it’s hard not to reel with questions of our own: How could someone so beloved come to such a senseless end? How can we account for such a staggering loss to the culture when it came so prematurely? How can we juggle that grief and our horror over the violent murder of Jews at an Australian beach, gathered to celebrate the first night of Hanukkah, and still light candles of our own?
The act of asking may be a way forward, just as Rob Reiner first emerged from sitcom stardom by making inquiries.
In This is Spinal Tap, his first feature, he played the role of Marty DiBergi, the in-universe director of the documentary about the misbegotten 1982 U.S. concert tour of the eponymous metal band. He was, in a sense, culminating the work of his father, Carl Reiner, who launched a classic comedy record as the interviewer of Mel Brooks’ 2,000 Year Old Man. DiBergi as played by Reiner was a reverential interlocutor — one might say a fanboy — but he did take time to query Nigel Tufnell as to why his amp went to 11. And, quoting a bad review, he asked “What day did the Lord create Spinal Tap, and couldn’t he have rested on that day too?”
But Reiner had larger questions to mull over. And in this capacity — not just his iconic scene at Katz’s Deli in When Harry Met Sally or the goblin Yiddishkeit of Miracle Max in The Princess Bride — he was a fundamentally Jewish director.
Stand By Me is a poignant meditation on death through the eyes of childhood — it asks what we remember and how those early experiences shape us. The Princess Bride is a storybook consideration of love — it wonders at the price of seeking or avenging it at all costs. A Few Good Men is a trenchant, cynical-for-Aaron Sorkin, inquest of abuse in the military — how can it happen in an atmosphere of discipline.
In his public life, Reiner was an activist. He asked how he could end cigarette smoking. He asked why gay couples couldn’t marry like straight ones. He asked what Russia may have had on President Trump. This fall, with the FCC’s crackdown on Jimmy Kimmel, he asked if he would soon be censored. He led with the Jewish question of how the world might be repaired.
Guttingly, in perhaps his most personal project, 2015’s Being Charlie, co-written by his son Nick he wondered how a parent can help a child struggling with addiction. (Nick was questioned by the LAPD concerning his parents’ deaths and was placed under arrest.)
Related
None of the questions had pat answers. Taken together, there’s scarcely a part of life that Reiner’s filmography overlooked, including the best way to end it, in 2007’s The Bucket List.
Judging by the longevity of his parents, both of whom lived into their 90s, it’s entirely possible Reiner had much more to ask of the world. That we won’t get to see another film by him, or spot him on the news weighing in on the latest democratic aberration, is hard to swallow.
Yet there is some small comfort in the note Reiner went out on. In October, he unveiled Spinal Tap II: The Beginning of the End, a valedictory moment in a long and celebrated career.
Reiner once again returned to the role of DiBergi. I saw a special prescreening with a live Q&A after the film. It was the day Charlie Kirk was assassinated. I half-expected Reiner to break character and address political violence — his previous film, God & Country, was a documentary on Christian Nationalism.
But Reiner never showed up — only Marty DiBergi, sitting with Nigel Tuffnell (Christopher Guest), David St. Hubbins (Michael McKean) and Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer) at Grauman’s Chinese Theater in Los Angeles. The interview was broadcast to theaters across the country, with viewer-submitted questions like “What, in fact, did the glove from Smell the Glove smell like?” (Minty.) And “Who was the inspiration for ‘Big Bottom?’” (Della Reese.)
Related
- Actor-Director Rob Reiner dies at 78
- Carl Reiner On Judaism, Atheism And The ‘Monster’ In The White House
- Mandy Patinkin On His Favorite ‘Princess Bride’ Quote
DiBergi had one question for the audience: “How did you feel about the film?”
The applause was rapturous, but DiBergi still couldn’t get over Nigel Tuffnell’s Marshall amp, which now stretched beyond 11 and into infinity.
“How can that be?” he asked. “How can you go to infinity? How loud is that?”
There’s no limit, Tuffnell assured him. “Why should there be a limit?”
Reiner, an artist of boundless curiosity and humanity, was limitless. His remit was to reason why. He’ll be impossible to replace, but in asking difficult questions, we can honor him.
The post Rob Reiner asked the big questions. His death leaves us searching for answers. appeared first on The Forward.