Buddy, the latest documentary from Peruvian born Dutch filmmaker Heddy Honigmann, isn’t perfect. However, what it does well is to show the complex relationship between its human and animal subjects. Any other director would simply focus on the six service dogs and their grateful owners. But there’s a third wheel in that relationship – the owners’ families – which Honigmann talks to. These relatives provide a window to why these owners need their dogs. The specifics within their different abilities come to the forefront. One of these relatives tell Honigmann that sometimes, humans don’t have the skill sets to help each other. And that’s when these guide dogs come in.

In this conventional talking head movie, Honigmann occasionally allows for the audience to hear her voice. In doing so, she capably points out the differences between dogs and humans. The human subjects do talk a lot about how old these dogs are. One of the dogs, Makker, is ten years old while their owner, Edith, is 86, surviving events like the Second World War.  There’s an underlying theme about how a dog’s life span is shorter than humans. And that the humans are going to have to think about replacing these dogs and reconnecting with new ones. Some of the humans we see have gone through the process, while others haven’t.

There’s an expectation that this film is going to show the dogs and their people within public spaces. Some humans need their dogs to navigate such spaces. Privacy, in docs like this, has limits. It would come in the form of the dogs and their humans are in rooms where the latter normally allow their visitors. Honigmann goes a step further, showing both in bedrooms. Scenes like this are important in showing that these humans need their dogs everywhere. That sometimes getting out bed can be difficult for some of us.

Just like Makker, Mister has a person who has survived a war. This person is actually a veteran who did tours in Europe and Afghanistan. Some of these dogs, like Makker and Mister, have people with interesting stories. I’m not sure I can say the same about the other subjects for one of two reason. One, is that some of the subjects Honigmann picked aren’t that interesting. Two, that she didn’t get enough material for them. Either way, she uses some of these subjects as screen time fillers. I would have rather her excise those filler subjects. The fewer she has, the more commonalities can pop up among them. That’s my only complaint about an otherwise passable doc.