Not a revolutionary statement, I know. Oftentimes, I hear people say, "I like Amon back when he was interesting"--implying that Amon pre-finale, the conceived farmboy who hates benders because of the murder of his family and the scarring of his face, is interesting and Noatak is not. I have to disagree, thought I won't decry the preference. For the longest time, I agreed with this sentiment. Even though I was 99% sure that Amon was lying, I didn't want it to be true, and when it was, augh Noatak, we need to get you some water resistant paint, man.
But, to me at least, Noatak is intriguing. My only issue with Amon being a liar is that it'll probably be used to discredit the Equalist platform; while bombing the whole fucking city was not a good idea, the issue of nonbender oppression should not be cast aside because that does not remove the truth in others' experiences.
If anything, he's more interesting than when he was infallible, though I loved watching him kick ass; I definitely get why he was portrayed as so tough--because he's playing the symbol, the enigmatic figure in the shadows. Part of me wanted that identity to stay, never having his true background revealed and leaving his sincerity ambiguous, and part of me anxiously yearned to know who he was.
A common complaint about Noatak, at least from what I glimpsed during the blow-up (undoubtedly a poor of choice, sorry Tarrlok) of commentary is how inconsistent he is. What are we supposed to feel toward him? Tarrlok says that he's genuine and believes that bending causes suffering, yet he doesn't hold back in bloodbending Korra and Mako; he's depicted as a caring brother, but calls his little brother weak for not wanting to leave their mother (I'm sniffing out some mommy issues--Noatak, this is Azula; Azula, Noatak). He's protective and callous.
However, this is what attracts me to Noatak's character. He tries to keep cool, but he's so contradictory, which I attribute to his major fucking issues. I can't fathom him--because ever aspect of his character contradicts another part. It's as if he's composed of several masks to hide himself, the bending prodigy his father bred, and yet it's that skill he turns to (desperation, I guess--the "accelerating of his plans") that makes him such a potent foe against the Avatar (ironically something he was groomed to become) and a friend to his cause.
Does he genuinely care for the Equalist cause, is it a power grab, or both? Was it a "fuck you" toward his dad, only to backfire because he was too reliant on bending, or did he not implement bending until later, when he thought it was the only solution? I think it's interpreted that they just turned Amon into a heartless bastard instead of a wounded but misguided man who's seeking vengeance because of his tragic past, but, in a way, I think Noatak IS a wounded but misguided man who's seeking vengeance because of his tragic past.
After the finale, I lamented that it seems that they turned Noatak into someone who is just plain power-hungry, and someone anonymously replied that, no, it's obvious that he cared for the movement. Honestly, I don't see a lot of evidence for either opinion, which is both hair-pulling and fascinating. On one hand, we know so little about this character before he was killed off, but then again, there's a lot of room for different theories, and none of them are necessarily wrong. You can make a case for a stone-cold Noatak who was broken, or maybe an idealist seeking redemption and ultimately going astray with his good intentions.
This has nothing to do with Noatak being attractive. If he happened to be honest, it wouldn't have deterred me, but, while I was initially disappointed, I think there's a lot of potential to explore Noatak's character, and he's not as one-dimensional as he's often portrayed.
