Raked Staging

[paulears]

Hate the play with a passion, and I've seen the scene done amazing ways - one was a weird contraption that was a kind of stepped pyramid, made from small metre square blocks that looked like they were just randomly piled on each other, but obviously properly secured - because the actor was climbing all over them in the pain of metamorphosis.

 

Gentle angles rarely look like angles at all, and the current trend to de-rake stages has minimal impact on sight lines.

[david.elsbury]

The original plan was to have a crazy gradient, like 1:2 or even 1:1 (45 degrees, as you suggested), which is similar to what was used in the Royal Ballet's version.

...wouldn't 1:1 be flat, or is that just me? :)

[portytech]

...wouldn't 1:1 be flat, or is that just me? :)

 

No as it is 1 up and one along e.g. 1:1 =1' up and 1' along which gives an angle of 45 deg

[paulears]

I must admit that on my personal scale of risk, If I had some 8' decks of the usual type, with some scaff and clamps, it would be a fairly simple job to build a wall at 45 degrees across a stage - standing on the short edge leaning back, with long rear legs, and the use of triangles. Even if you are unsure,you could design and build it and then get the local scaff firm, who may well have loaned you some bits, to look at it and tell you it's safe.

[Seano]

frankly I'd be inclined to bash it together out of wood

 

Given an existing stock of Litedeck/Steeldeck/etc, I would probably go with scaff. Neither approach is particularly difficult, but both have potentially serious consequences if done wrong obviously.

Which is easier probably depends on the skills, tools and materials available in house.

 

 

with long rear legs, and the use of triangles.

 

I'd be more inclined to go with short rear 'legs', nowhere near long enough to reach the ground, just sufficient to clamp to a scaff structure with vertical legs. (And, of course, triangles. :))

Same effect, more compact footprint.