Affluenza, the first of Riverside Studio’s season of plays has an intriguing concept. On the surface, it’s about an affluent family whose son, Dylan, is involved in a car crash that leaves several people dead or seriously injured, and the fallout from that. But the play is definitely not quite what it first appears to be.

One of the first things that is striking is the set design from Charlie Corcoran, which looks like a pristine lived-in home, with many little details that make it compelling to look at. The lighting from Jack Weir is also used really well at points, particularly when moving between scenes and creating more tension.

The first act, though, seemed struggled to find its feet. There’s a lot of scene-setting and conversation as we learn about the different families involved and understand what has happened. The character development here is good, but it felt like a lot of the scenes dragged on. There were also a few microphone issues throughout the show, which weren't massively distracting but were noticeable and affected the audio of some cast members.

The acting in the first half was also quite mixed. Some of the performances felt a little unnatural, and I never really felt that the cast were able to properly settle into their characters. Noah Schnapp, who plays Dylan, was not bad, but he also was not that exciting, which is a shame when he is acknowledged as being the star-studded cast member and is all over the marketing, but his role didn't really give him much opportunity to stand out.

The first act did at least leave you wondering where it was going as it ends quite dramatically. The audience are led to believe, or are hoping that the slow scene-setting is building up to a more tense and exciting second act…and then the second act starts, and this is not the case. The beginning of the second act genuinely feels like you have walked into the wrong auditorium. 

For starters, the second act represents a rather large jump forward in time, which is not made particularly clear. Audiences go from watching a distressed family and legal allegations unravel, to suddenly watching a different couple arguing in what looks like a much more run-down version of the house from the first act. At first you're left wondering what is actually going on. Then a camera crew appears, revealing this is actually the filming of a reality TV show, and this is where the play became a lot more entertaining.

There are some rather funny moments in the reality TV sections, as the characters battle with what they can and can't say and do, and exaggerate their role for the camera. The cast do seem to have much more fun with these roles, which shows with their, what seems like, increased enthusiasm. Juliet Cowan as Liz is particularly entertaining, while Donald Sage Mackay as Ron, the cameraman, is another standout. These characters really do help to lift up the play. Mackay steals the show with his scene singing along to If God Was One of Us, which provided the most entertainment throughout the night. Mackay and Cowan as Ron and Liz both bring a lot more energy and personality to the second half, and you can really see them enjoying themselves and representing genuinely great characters.

Although the second act is more entertaining, it does leave you to wonder how exactly we have gotten to this point in time with these new characters, and how this was supposed to connect to the first act. What makes the second act even more bewildering is that the programme for Affluenza does not list who each actor portrays, which can leave audiences quite confused, particularly with the time jumps and the cast doubling up on roles. This is information that should be made available to audiences.

Eventually, some of the connections start to unravel, but the revelations didn’t really land with much force or emphasis. The two halves just don't blend particularly well. It could frankly have been two different plays; one is a more serious family drama following the consequences of a tragic accident, while the other is a much more comedic reality-TV satire. Both ideas could work well on their own, but they did not quite complement each other as intended here. Affluenza should have just committed to one of these ideas and explored it in depth, as they are both interesting and thought-provoking concepts, rather than trying to do both. There are some interesting themes and ideas running through, but it just did not seem to come together in a satisfying way. Even in the second act, which is much more entertaining, the scenes could still feel quite dragged out. The play also ended rather abruptly rather than feeling like it had reached a proper conclusion.

Affluenza has some good ideas, an impressive set, some clever lighting and a handful of genuinely funny performances. The second half is more enjoyable than the first, but the show overall feels quite disjointed. The central revelations and the connection between the two halves don’t quite land in the way they should. It's not a bad play, and has some funny moments, but it feels like it could have been a much stronger one if it had picked a direction and committed to it with more umph and enthusiasm.