Schama vs. Januszczak on Caravaggio

I'm thoroughly enjoying the Simon Schama series, though I do agree with many on this board that the reenactments often threaten to overshadow and crowd out the actual artworks that drew us to the series in the first place.

One exception for me was the Caravaggio episode, where I thought Paul Popplewell was outstanding. I actually wanted to see more reenactments starring him! I enjoyed the Caravaggio episode a lot . . . until I watched Waldemar Januszczak's more recent series THE BAROQUE! FROM ST. PETER'S TO ST. PAUL'S.

When in the first episode Januszczak begins his extended look at Caravaggio, he declares, "What rubbish has been spouted about Caravaggio. Even sensible commentators on sensible TV channels have insisted on seeing him as a knife-mad, predatory homosexual who went berserk in Baroque Rome: The 'Ripper of Roma.' This demonic image of Caravaggio annoys me like nothing else in the Baroque world. As if a sex-mad, out-of-control Roman crazy could really have painted this," with which the camera pans to show Caravaggio's beautiful "Supper at Emmaus."

After allowing the camera to linger on the magnificence of the piece, Januszczak adds, "Thank heavens, recent research into Caravaggio has begun correcting all this nonsense, and we can start seeing him again for what he really was--the most important religious painter of the Counter Reformation."

I suspect the "sensible commentator" Januszczak refers to here is Simon Schama, whose popular POWER OF ART series coupled with Popplewell's performance likely cemented in the minds of audiences the impression of Caravaggio as a crazy, sword-wielding, proto-Cagney, smashing an artichoke into a hapless waiter's face. That was the impression I had!

I would greatly appreciate reading the thoughts of anyone who has seen these two conflicting portrayals of Caravaggio and who could weigh in and/or point me towards sources that support or deny either man's position.