Its just a fashion, unless you find a really serious filmmaker.
Utter nonsense. Besides the main reason cameras move more than they used to, is that equipment is so much better now. Particularly since the advent of the steadicam. And one of the first films to feature it [and upside down to boot] was 'The Shining' by Kubrick, one of the most serious of filmakers. Used well
, movement is an important part of the story telling process.
I was watching 'The Leopard' by Visconti the other day and the lack of camera movement is jarring. Some classic movies can seem almost 'motionless' when you start watching, then as the drama and character involvement takes over you don't see it any more.
Many older movies can also seem quite flat these days, with the staid, limited and at times very clunky camerawork and the stories don't always stand the test of time either. The overated chase scene in 'Bullit' is very boring to my mind - it may have been great in it's time, but time passes.
I should also point out I like long takes and I also really like fixed cameras, as long as they serve the story
. I saw Tarkovsky's stuff many years ago and seem to recall it was all a bit boring. Which reminds me - I recently saw a 1970s film that a friend thought was the most boring film ever [Vanishing Point] and what struck me most, was how oddly contemporary the cinematography and camera work was.
One of the benfits of taking story telling out from underneath the proscenium arch is that you free up the 'stage' and alllow movement of the viewing experience. If you want no movement, go to the theatre. Camera movement is part of the essence of the cinematic experience, so why not use it?