Jet lag: Canadian director Atom Egoyan was broiling last month in the Hollywood Hills, where I watched him put Kevin Bacon, Colin Firth and Alison Lohman through their paces in the ’70s-era period drama "Where the Truth Lies." Bacon and Firth, decked out in bell bottoms and big-collared shirts, play former partners of a comedy team who are reunited under tense circumstances by an investigative reporter, portrayed by Lohman.

The scenes were filmed on the grounds of the Stalls House, a modernist architectural landmark. But instead of continuing the project in one of the dozens of production facilities just a few minutes away, the "Truth" team flew to England the next day, where the home’s interior had been painstakingly re- constructed on a London soundstage.

Robert Lantos, producer of the $24 million film, explained that the counterintuitive logistical hassle was in fact grounded in some very sound fiscal realities.

"Films are made wherever it is most economically viable to shoot them," Lantos told me by phone from England. "Sometimes it’s because one place is cheaper than another. London is probably the most expensive place on Earth, but there’s an equally compelling reason to come here, which is that there is significant financing available for films that qualify as British."

Follow-the-money financing can profoundly affect where a film is shot. For example, even though Brad Anderson’s forthcoming thriller "The Machinist" was set in the United States, it was filmed entirely in Spain because that’s where the funding came from.

In the case of "Where the Truth Lies," Lantos says, "This group of English investors put up a significant portion of the budget in return for an equity position. In addition to that, there is a U.K. tax write-off that results in money that comes into the film that doesn’t have to be repaid. In all, it can add up to close to half the budget of the movie, just for being British qualified."

The made-in-Britain standard, he says, "includes spending money in England, i.e. shooting here. So rather than build the set in a studio in Los Angeles, which would have made life simpler for everybody, we built it in a studio in London."

Raising money to make a movie used to be far easier, but Lantos says, in the late ’90s, distributors who had eagerly invested in quality art-house pictures got cold feet, giving rise to an intricate network of government- backed financing schemes.

"There’s no point in being clever about putting financing together if you sacrifice the film in the process," Lantos says. "Some just cannot be financed in a clever way because it means compromising them to the point it’s not worth making them. But because it has a lot of interiors, ’Where the Truth Lies’ is a portable film.

"My real job is to contribute to the creative process and make sure the film gets properly marketed. Then I have this other thing, which is how to get them made. It means there’s a lot of jet lag. And it is inconvenient. I sort of look at it as a necessary evil."

Take it off, put it on: As Shylock in the upcoming "Merchant of Venice" movie, Al Pacino gets to deliver Shakespeare’s famous "pound of flesh" speech. But it takes more than 16 ounces, gained or lost, to impress members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Ever since Robert De Niro won a best actor Oscar in 1981 after putting on 60 pounds in "Raging Bull," extreme makeovers have ranked right up there with foreign accents and mental disability as a performance-enhancing Oscar magnet.

Tom Hanks lost 60 pounds for "Castaway" and earned a nomination in 2001. Renee Zellweger gained 17 pounds for "Bridget Jones’s Diary" and was nominated for a best actress Oscar in 2002. Last year, Adrien Brody won the best actor Oscar after losing 30 pounds for "The Pianist." And this year, Charlize Theron took home the best actress trophy for "Monster," for which she had gained 28 pounds. All of this portends well for "Ray" star Jamie Foxx next year. He lost 35 pounds to portray rake-thin musician Ray Charles.

Not that infomercial-worthy diet regimens guarantee academy attention. In 1996, Mira Sorvino won a best supporting actress Oscar for "Mighty Aphrodite," which she had filmed at her normal body weight. Yet, when she shed 32 pounds and became nearly unrecognizable to fans as a concentration camp victim in the 2001 film "The Grey Zone," she wasn’t recognized by the academy either.

Gellar breaks through: Many try but few succeed in crossing over from television to movies. Credit Sarah Michelle Gellar with making the leap. Between "Scooby-Doo 2," which grossed $84 million, and "The Grudge," which surprised even Sony executives with its $39 million opening, the ex-TV actress formerly known as Buffy the Vampire Slayer has became the only movie actress this year to enjoy starring roles in two No. 1 box-office films. Her pair of pictures, collectively grossing $123 million, have outdrawn Lindsay Lohan’s teen oeuvre ($115 million between "Mean Girls" and "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen") and Drew Barrymore’s romantic comedy ($121 million for "50 First Dates"). Kirsten Dunst still leads the pack thanks to "Spider-Man 2."

"It’s probably a situation not unlike Ashley Judd after ’Double Jeopardy, ’ " says David Mumpower, an analyst for BoxOfficeProphets.com. "Gellar is going to be up for a lot more A-list parts than she would have been just a month ago."

Still, Mumpower believes it’s premature to crown Gellar with It Girl status. He credits her recent hits to high concepts rather than casting.

"We’ll find out if she actually has that much appeal on her own," he says. "A lot of people thought Angelina Jolie was very popular with women. They haven’t been showing up lately."