What I am constantly surprised by is the fact that many historians (who I’ll describe as ‘armchair’, regarding this topic) that study and analyze Caravaggio, try to make their assumptions and opinions seem like solid facts, over a man who we barely have little ‘primary sources’ over. At most we have his court records, which granted, will not always be accurate (especially given an individual who would try to avoid the wrath of law).
My absolute favorite has to be Simon Schama’s documentary about him, where, he not only speaks about him in a manner of ‘distaste’ and absolute sarcasm (you’re supposed to be educating your audience, not show your personal feelings over a man who died over 5 centuries ago) but also spouted out the most ridiculous things, without adding any sources, save for one ‘fact’ regarding what he said in a court record (something along the lines of ‘I will cut your testicles off and fry them in oil’).
His most ridiculous had to be ‘He had a dog named ‘Crow’ (not even an Italian name for a dog, mind you.) who he taught how to stand up on his hind legs’
He also made no effort to mention his two companions, Mario Minniti (who later went to Sicily) or Onorio (the Architect).
If you do wish to learn more about Caravaggio on the lines of fact and not baseless assumptions, I recommend books at most, books with viable sources - not documentaries such as these. At best, Italian books translated into English (unless you are fluent or have a good grasp of Italian.)