I love it when the guy just brutally forces his kayak around the iceberg at around 1:40. Most modern kayakers would never throw their legs with an extended paddle like that.

What do you know about the guy in the film? Was he considered a good kayaker? Maybe he was considered the village idiot. Maybe the best kayaker in the group would have edged slightly and powered through without extending. All we can learn from the film is that some kayakers, in the era the film was made, paddled in the way seen in the film.

That said, I know a lot of modern paddlers who would opt for power strokes over a dainty stroke. It really depends on context and how urgently they want to make the turn.

's also worth noting that at the first appearance of the kayak there is ZERO bow wave from the kayak- which would make it quieter.

You seem to be making an assumption that quiet is valued. I can imagine why it would be valued, but did hunters stalk prey at speeds where the bow wake of a kayak like the Night Heron would matter? I don't know. We can only surmise. The suggestion that it matters makes huge assumptions about how a hunt progressed.

Was the sea quiet enough that a bow wave would spook the quarry? Were seals more cautious of sounds or paddle motion? How close did the hunter want to get before throwing a harpoon. How fast was the approach? Would the hunter make a straight approach or curve in? If they turned, when would they turn. Did it matter?

I suspect the differences between a successful hunt and going hungry were more subtle than we imagine. We can see gross differences such as bow wave size, but we would be very lucky to get within rifle range of a seal with the "best" Inuit kayak ever, let alone close enough to kill one with a harpoon, where a traditional hunter would likely have decent success using any kayak made today. In the overall context of surviving in the Arctic, the hunter may prefer a Pungo over maintaining a skin on frame.