But what I mean is that, rather than a "cinematic" approach which is composition-predominant, treating the figure as a subject in the frame, Eisner's approach is more "actorly," following the fluid ups and downs and dynamics of gesture. That he often foregoes any panel boundaries but very liquid washes that only darken, but don't bound, the edge of the storytelling unit, is one part of how this manifests with him. Think of how many pages you can think of in his later work that follow only the motion and speech of the figure, in a series of "peak moments."
That's really interesting to think about. Do you feel that tends to hold true for his earlier work as well?