There is no grammar of the cinema. There are better and worse ways of constructing sequences and narrating what you may wish to tell, but if we define grammar as the necessary order that words need to follow so that larger utterances (eg sentences) can be understood, then there is no grammar of the cinema. Chopping up shots and rearranging them creates new sequences, and the fact that film students have to be taught about establishing shots, point of view, the 180° rule and cutaways is evidence in itself as none of these students have ever had to be formally taught ‘grammar’. Meaning can be changed when sequences are rearranged, or these ‘rules’ ignored, but meaning is not fundamentally risked as it is when we mess with grammar. For example, the sentence before is grammatically ok, but if I use the same words to form: “changed be can rules is meaning ignored are rearranged as we grammar is it fundamentally when meaning sequences these but or with mess risked not when” then the question is less what does it mean - problem of connotation, but what does it say, a question of denotation. 

[this matters to a korsakow film as if there is no grammar then what are the rules for composing?]