In film study circles it has long been understood that there is a similarity
between the Fennolosa's description of the ideogrammic method and
Eisenstein's theory and of montage.
Pound's method, and his writing, are very like Eisenstein's, in both theory
and practice.
However, it should be noted that Pound's endorsement of Disney ( a sympathy I
have been trying to figure out for the better part of two decades, - how
could a vorticist endure Disney's sappy, enervated style? ) places him in
diametric opposition to Eisenstein the artist.  Eisenstein described not just
juxtaposition - (simple montage as a theory is a bit of a truism - of course
that's how you make resonances in film, just as verbal images are arranged in
literature, and a piano and a voice are combined in music, etc. )...
Eisenstein wrote about, and practiced, DYNAMIC montage,  and Pound practiced
as incisive and dynamic a literary style...and Disney is very much elswhere.
Any insight as to what led Pound to appreciate Walt's work would be
tremendously appreciated.  What 'metaphysicals'?
Jay Anania