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