As a filmmaker who has been reading Eisenstein and watching his films for a quarter century(though with increasingly less frequency), and an amateur but sincere reader of Pound for as long, I agree with Charles that the similarities between the two are so superficial, and general, as to be of little interest. We had this thread a year or so ago, and at the time those postings seemed to me to be straining at Discovery where there was, sort of, none. E.'s montage is distinguished from any other basic method of assembling images (in film, poetry, and other arts) only in it's almost singular attention to the graphic qualities of the image and how they collide to produce the ineffable synthesis. His montage is one of collision, a dynamic graphic montage. And he did it with astonishing skill and inventiveness. Do you want to associate this with Pound's shoring of fragments? I don't know, to me the resonances are too simplistic. I doubt that Pound has ever been called a surrealist, but his method has much greated affinity, it seems, with the richer (than merely/mainly graphic) collision of images sought by such filmmakers as Bunuel, Jarman, Paradjanov, even Greenaway. (Notice I exclude Pound's surrealist friend Cocteau, whose major films seem particularly alien to Pound's sensibility. I know that Pound praised Cocteau, and would be interested if anyone has done work on the relationship between these two men. ??) Thanks, Jay Anania