True, but when it comes to a film, it's not JUST the actors. The camera is a character. A camera can have a personality. And the camera helps in telling the story through composition and movement. It helps in showing the emotion a character goes through (look at the "Vertigo" effect in "Jaws" when Brody watches the shark attack in person, which conveys the realization that the threat of a shark attack is truly real) and often invoke a feeling or response in the audience before the characters do (like how we see Michael Myers fading in from the dark just moments before he attacks Laurie in John Carpenter's Halloween
The director and the cinematographer both make the camera movements to help tell the story. To quote David Mamet
about the camera in his book On Directing
: "Most American directors approach it by saying, "let's follow the actors around," as if the film were a record of what the protagonists did. Now, if the film is a record of what the protagonist does, it had better be interesting."
If it was just about allowing the actors to do their thing, it'd be a stage play, not a film. It would all be stationary shots, there'd be no movement and at eye level. Does the tilting get abused? Yes. But the same argument can be made about every single type of shot that has ever been pulled off in film and television history. If a director chooses to have that kind of shot, he chose it for a reason.
My point is its not just about the actors. The camera, the audio, the lighting, acting, directing, writing and editing are all equally important.