Given scene/plot descriptions from movies or TV shows, and given a specific question about the scene, summarize the question into a title

[Q]: Jamal and Salim are Muslim. Their family was targeted by an anti-Muslim riot, and Salim is a Muslim name, and I think Salim said "Allah Akbar" once. Is Latika supposed to be Muslim? She didn't wear a headscarf covering all of her hair, whereas Muslim women in most though not all countries do. On the other hand, there was a romance between Jamal and Latika, when Muslim men are only allowed to marry Abrahamic women.
[A]: Is Latika from "Slumdog Millionaire" Muslim?

[Q]: In the movie Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, Jack Reacher has a sheriff arrested by military police because this sheriff is possibly involved human trafficking. Can military police arrest a civilian on US soil? I thought MPs were only allowed to operate within military personnel.
[A]: Can military police arrest civilians on US soil?

[Q]: I've noticed a trend recently where, in a particularly violent scene, blood will end up on the lens of the camera. It's not restricted to blood; it could be water, if it's a particularly stormy scene, or mud in, say, a battle. Any kind of liquid, really. The point is that the scene is usually pretty charged. Has this become fashionable and, if so, why? I don't recall seeing this as much when I was younger -- but maybe I just didn't notice -- and, for me, it breaks the suspension of disbelief. I presume the production team are in control of the filming enough such that they can choose if or when this happens, rather than it being accidental. Is it a meta thing to try to suggest to the viewer that the scene is so chaotic, that even the producers can't control it?
[A]:
Blood on the lens