The definite article is definitely NOT required, as stated by the previous commenter, and is actually more common and natural without it, i.e. Let's discuss Russian grammar. The use of the definite article here is not incorrect, however it is superfluous and awkward, at least to my ear.
In another context, one would say: I'm having trouble with Russian grammar. If one said the Russian grammar here, it would call to mind the grammar textbook, since this is also called a grammar.
Also note the following: Let's discuss...
- Russian pronunciation, BUT the Russian sound system (or phonology)
- Russian syntax OR Russian word order [no article]
- Russian semantics BUT the Russian mentality
- Russian vocabulary BUT the Russian lexicon
This is a rather complicated issue. Your examples are from M.Swan's PEU, aren't they? But look how Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik in A Communicative Grammar of English treat it:
The also has a generic use, referring to what is general or typical for a whole class of objects.This is found with count nouns:
The tiger is one of the big cats; it is rivalled only by the lion in strength and ferocity. [1]
Here the tiger indicates tigers in general, not one individual. Thus [1] expresses essentially the same meaning as [2] and [3]:
Tigers have no mane. [2]
A tiger has no mane. [3]
[2] is the generic use of the indefinite plural form; [3] is the generic use of the indefinite singular.
When we are dealing with a whole class of objects as here, the differences between definite and indefinite, singular and plural, tend to lose their importance. But there is a slight difference in the fact that the tiger (generic) refers to the species as a whole, while a tiger (generic) refers to any member of the species. We can say:
The tiger is in danger of becoming extinct.
Tigers are in danger of becoming extinct.
BUT NOT : *A tiger is in danger of becoming extinct.
I'm not a native speaker, so it's rather puzzling to me too.
Best Answer
No.
If there is a definite article in the title, you say it as part of the title:
However, if there isn't, you don't need to add one.
The only time you would see an added article would be if the film title is used as an adjective phrase modifying a noun that take an article. For example, you would say:
and:
Therefore, if you use the title as an adjective phrase, you would also say:
But this is because "soundtrack" needs the article, not because the title does.
You should also be aware that, if there is an article in the title, when you use it as an adjective you would normally not repeat the adjective. So, for example, it would be more common to hear:
than: