'Cinematic'???

After the seminar last thursday on Cinematic Undertones and Overtones, all I wanted to do was go have a nice big glass of wine and forget all about it. The thing is, I was completely overwhelmed by everything, trying to make sense of the not only the relationship between cinema and photography, but what each of these actually are.
Up until then, I think my understanding of what 'cinematic' meant was being tied to what is narrative. And while I believe that there can be a strong connection between the cinematic and narrative, I don't think they're strictly synonymous with one another.
In her lecture, Rachel loosely described

photography=documentary

while cinema=narrative

then still photos that are narrative in style

are viewed and understood as cinematic

Ive just been having a massive discussion with someone about whether or not this statement is true, and after much debate we decided it was. my previous understanding was that cinema did not need to be narrative; it could be structural, non-sensical and abstract... but then I realized maybe I was thinking of all moving image as cinema.. some of which is not narrative. But perhaps what makes a moving image 'cinematic' is narrativity (even if it non-conventional and non-linear, it just has to engage with the concept of narrative time).
Viewing it in that way essentially means that other works (photographs, music etc) could be more cinematic than some moving image.
Then there's cinematic aesthetic qualities such as lighting which can also allude to the idea of cinematic.. so something which lacks narrativity but has some aesthetically cinematic values could in essense also be cinematic...? maybe.
Blah, so confused, but i think my mind is slowly sorting itself out. Here's some of my mind's scribbles on paper...