Adam Driver provided a politically ambivalent response to Rich Eisen’s questions on the latter’s show. But it is clear that Driver, at least initially, found the idea of playing Darth Vader’s narrative opposite compelling.
Certain fans tend to agree. Some, like @hold_vintage, believe that Kylo Ren was intended to portray the mindset of someone susceptible to political indoctrination. They said, “They completely gutted the point of the character which was set up as fascism is a choice made by people who crave power and control not because they are victims of the Dark Side.” While no one affiliated with the artistic team for the third “Star Wars” trilogy has officially stated that their work portrays the dangers of fascism, George Lucas openly intended for his space opera to caution against violent political decisions, i.e. the Vietnam War.
Others, like @BeaversGod, believe that an evil Kylo Ren would have better aligned with the narrative as provided at face value. They opined, “Actually … that might have made more sense based on the prophecy. Maybe ‘returning balance to the force’ required the rebirth of the Sith in a form more traditional than what Palpatine embodied? Seems so much more interesting than what we ended up with.” The prophecy in question states, “A chosen one shall come, born of no father, and through him will ultimate balance in the Force be restored.” The origin of the prophecy itself is one of the questions that “Star Wars” movies never quite answer, but this interpretation of it requires “born of no father” to imply that Kylo Ren was born of Luke Skywalker’s (Mark Hamill) mistakes, rather than any direct reference to genetic lineage.
