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
Are Niche and Unconventional Relationships Monopolizing the Dating World?
The question assumes a battle being waged and lost. It assumes that something fringe has crept into the center and pushed everything else aside. But the dating world has never operated as a single system with uniform rules. People have always sorted themselves according to preference, circumstance, and opportunity. What has changed is the visibility of that sorting and the tools available to execute it.
Online dating generated $10.28 billion globally in 2024. By 2033, projections put that figure at $19.33 billion. A market of that size does not serve one type of person or one type of relationship. It serves demand, and demand has always been fragmented. The apps and platforms we see now simply make that fragmentation visible in ways that provoke commentary.
Relationship Preferences
Niche dating platforms now account for nearly 30 percent of the online dating market, and projections suggest they could hold 42 percent of market share by 2028. This growth reflects how people are sorting themselves into categories that fit their actual lives.
Some want a sugar relationship, others seek partners within specific religious or cultural groups, and still others look for connections based on hobbies or lifestyle choices. The old model of casting a wide net has given way to something more targeted.
A YouGov poll found 55 percent of Americans prefer complete monogamy, while 34 percent describe their ideal relationship as something other than monogamous. About 21 percent of unmarried Americans have tried consensual non-monogamy at some point. These numbers do not suggest a takeover. They suggest a population with varied preferences now has platforms that accommodate those preferences openly rather than forcing everyone into the same structure.
The Numbers Tell a Different Story
Polyamory and consensual non-monogamy receive substantial attention in media coverage and on social platforms. The actual practice rate sits between 4% and 5% of the American population. That figure has remained relatively stable even as public awareness has increased. Being aware of something and participating in it are separate behaviors.
A 2020 YouGov poll reported that 43% of millennials describe their ideal relationship as non-monogamous. Ideals and actions do not always align. People answer surveys about what sounds appealing in theory. They then make decisions based on their specific circumstances, available partners, and emotional capacity. The gap between stated preference and lived reality is substantial.
Where Young People Are Looking
Gen Z accounts for more than 50% of Hinge users. According to a 2025 survey by The Knot, over 50% of engaged couples met through dating apps. These platforms have become primary infrastructure for forming relationships. They are not replacing traditional dating; they are the context in which traditional dating now occurs.
Younger users encounter more relationship styles on these platforms because the platforms allow for it. Someone seeking a conventional monogamous partnership will still find that option readily available. The presence of other options does not eliminate this possibility. It adds to the menu.
Monopoly Implies Exclusion
The framing of the original question suggests that niche relationships might be crowding out mainstream ones. Monopoly means one entity controls a market to the exclusion of competitors. Nothing in the current data supports that characterization.
Mainstream dating apps serve millions of users seeking conventional relationships. These apps have added features to accommodate other preferences, but their core user base remains people looking for monogamous partnerships. The addition of new categories does not subtract from existing ones. Someone filtering for a specific religion or hobby does not prevent another person from using the same platform without those filters.
What Actually Changed
Two things happened. First, apps built segmentation into their business models because segmentation increases user satisfaction. People find what they want faster when they can specify their preferences. Second, social acceptance expanded for certain relationship types that previously operated in private or faced stigma.
Neither of these developments amounts to a monopoly. They amount to market differentiation and cultural acknowledgment. A person seeking a sugar arrangement and a person seeking marriage can both use apps built for their respective purposes. They are not competing for the same resources.
The Perception Problem
Media coverage tends toward novelty. A story about millions of people using apps to find conventional relationships does not generate engagement. A story about unconventional relationship types generates clicks, comments, and shares. This creates a perception gap between how often something is discussed and how often it actually occurs.
The 4% to 5% practicing polyamory receive disproportionate coverage relative to the 55% who prefer complete monogamy. The coverage is not wrong, but it creates an impression of prevalence that exceeds reality.
Where This Leaves Us
Niche relationships are not monopolizing dating. They are becoming more visible and more accommodated by platforms that benefit from serving specific needs. The majority of people seeking relationships still want conventional arrangements, and they still find them through the same channels.
The dating world is larger than it was before. It contains more explicit options. It allows people to state preferences that once required inference or luck. None of this constitutes a takeover. It constitutes an expansion. The space for one type of relationship did not shrink to make room for another. The total space grew.
Features
Matthew Lazar doing his part to help keep Israelis safe in a time of war
By MYRON LOVE It is well known – or at least it should be – that while Israel puts a high value of protecting the lives of its citizens, the Jewish state’s Islamic enemies celebrate death. The single most glaring difference between the opposing sides can be seen in the differing approach to building bomb shelters to protect their populations.
Whereas Hamas and Hezbollah have invested untold billions of dollars over the past 20 years in building underground tunnels to protect their fighters while leaving their “civilian” populations exposed to Israeli bombs, not only has Israel built a highly sophisticated anti-missile system but also the leadership has invested heavily in making sure that most Israelis have access to bomb shelters – wherever they are – in war time.
While Israel’s bomb shelter program is comprehensive, there are still gaps – gaps which Dr. Matthew Lazar is doing his bit to help reduce.
The Winnipeg born-and raised pediatrician -who is most likely best known to readers as a former mohel – is the president of Project Life Initiatives – the Canadian branch of Israel-based Operation Lifeshield whose mission is to provide bomb shelters for threatened Israeli communities.
Lazar actually got in on the ground floor – so to speak. It was a cousin of his, Rabbi Shmuel Bowman, Operation Lifeshield’s executive director, who – in 2006 – founded the organization.
“Shmuel was one of a small group of American olim and Israelis who were visiting the Galilee during the second Lebanon war in 2006 and found themselves under rocket attack – along with thousands of others – with no place to go,” recounts Lazar, who has two daughters living in Israel. “They decided to take action. I was one of the people Shmuel approached to become an Operation Lifeshield volunteer.
Since the founding of Lifeshield, Lazar reports, over 1,000 shelters have been deployed in Israel. The number of new shelter orders since October 7, 2023 is 149.
He further notes that while the largest share of Operation Lifeshield’s funding comes from American donors, there has been good support for the organization across Canada as well.
One of the major donors in Winnipeg is the Christian Zionist organization, Christian Friends of Israel (FOI) Canada which, in September, as part of its second annual “Stand With Israel Support” evening – presented Lazar and Operation Lifeshield with a cheque for $30,000 toward construction of a bomb shelter for the Yasmin kindergarten in the Binyamina Regional Council in Northern Israel.
Lazar reports that to date the total number of shelters donated by Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry (globally) is over 100.
Lazar notes that the head office for Project Life Initiatives is – not surprisingly – in Toronto. “We communicate by telephone, text and Zoom,” he says.
He observes that – as he is still a full time pediatrician – he isn’t able to visit Israel nearly as often as he would like to. He manages to go every couple of years and always makes a point of visiting some of Operation Lifeshield’s projects.
(He adds that his wife, Nola, gets to Israel two or three times a year – not only to visit family, but also in her role as president of Mercaz Canada – the Canadian Conservative movement’s Zionist arm.)
“This is something I have been able to do to help safeguard Israelis,” Lazar says of his work for Operation Lifeshield. “This is a wonderful thing we are doing. I am glad to be of help. ”
Features
Patterns of Erasure: Genocide in Nazi Europe and Canada
By LIRON FYNE When we think of the word genocide, our minds often jump to the Holocaust, the mass-scale, systemic government-led murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany during the Second World War, whose unprecedented scale and methods led to the very term ‘genocide’ being coined. On January 27th, 2026, we will bow our heads for International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the 80th year of remembrance.
Less frequently do we connect genocidal intent to the campaign against Indigenous peoples in Canada; the forced displacement, cultural destruction, and systematic killing that sought to erase Indigenous peoples. The genocide conducted by the Nazis and the genocidal intent of the Canadian government, though each unique in scale, motive, and implementation, share many conceptual similarities. Both were driven by ideologies of racial superiority, executed through governmental precision, and justified by the perpetrators as a moral mission.
At their core rests the concept of dehumanization. In Nazi Germany, Jews were viewed as subhuman, contaminated, and a threat to the ‘Aryan’ race. In Canada, Indigenous peoples were represented as obstacles to ‘progress’ and seen as hurdles to a Christian, Eurocentric nation. These ideas, this dehumanization, turned human beings into problems to be solved. Adolf Hitler called it the ‘Jewish question,’ leading to an official policy in 1942 called the ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Question,’ whereas Canadian officials called it the ‘Indian problem.’ The language is similar, a belief that one group’s existence endangers the destiny of another. The methods of extermination differed in practice and outcome, but the language of intent resembles one another.
The Holocaust’s concentration camps and carefully engineered gas chambers were designed for efficient, industrial-scale killing, resulting in mass murder. The well-organized plan of systematic degradation, deadly riots, brutal camp conditions, and designated killing centres were only a few of the ways the Nazis worked to eliminate the Jews. The Canadian government’s weapons were policy, assimilation and abandonment. Such as the Indian Act, reserves, and residential schools, which were all meant to ‘kill the Indian in the child,’ cutting generations off from their languages, families, and cultures. Thousands of Indigenous children died in residential schools, buried in unmarked graves near schools that called themselves places of learning. Both systems were backed by either religion or ideology; Nazi ideology brought together racist eugenic policies and virulent antisemitism, while Canada’s genocidal intent was supported by Christian Protestantism claiming to save Indigenous souls by erasing their heritage.
The Holocaust was a six-year campaign of complete industrialized extermination, mass murder with a mechanized intent, on a scale that remains historically unique. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission describes Canada’s indigenous genocide as a cultural one that unfolded over centuries through assimilation and the destruction of indigenous languages and identities. The Holocaust ended with the liberation of the camps and a global recognition of the atrocities committed. However, the generational trauma and dehumanization of antisemitism carry on. For Indigenous peoples in Canada, the effects of the genocidal intent continue to this day, visible in displacement, poverty, and intergenerational trauma. While these histories differ in form and timeline, both are rooted in dehumanization and the belief that some lives are worth less than others.
A disturbing similarity lies in the aftermath: silence and denial. The Holocaust forced the world to confront the atrocity with the vow of ‘Never Again,’ which has now been unearthed and reformed as ‘Never Again is Now,’ after the October 7th, 2023, massacre by Hamas. The largest massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust, and the denial of the atrocities committed on October 7th, highlight the same Holocaust denial we see rising around the world. In Canada, for decades, the genocidal intent was hidden behind narratives of kindness and social progress. Only in recent years, through survivor testimony for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the discovery of unmarked graves, has the truth gained recognition. But acknowledgment without justice risks repeating the same patterns of erasure.
Comparing these atrocities committed is not about comparing pain or scale; it is about understanding the shared systems that enabled them. Both demonstrate how racism, superiority, and dehumanization can be used to justify the destruction of human beings. Remembering is not enough in Canada. True remembrance demands accountability, land restitution, reparations, and education that confronts Canada’s ongoing colonial legacy. When we say ‘Never Again is Now’, we hold collective action to combat antisemitism in all forms. The same applies to Truth & Reconciliation; it must be more than a slogan; we must apply action to Truth & ReconciliACTION.
Liron Fyne is a 12th-grade student at Gray Academy of Jewish Education in Winnipeg. They are currently a Kenneth Leventhal High School Intern at StandWithUs Canada, a non-profit education organization that combats antisemitism.