Coppola is the most personally anti-violent person making movies in Hollywood. His career since Apocalypse (with the exception of Godfather III and Dracula, two movies he didn't even want to make and said were only done to placate the studios or make money) eschews violence to the point where the movies lack interest to most people. Godfather III is probably the best DVD commentary I ever listened to, where he goes into the reasons for abandoning violent movies (and, most would say, good movies) in his post-'70s work.

But why is he like this? Because what he did in the '70s, especially Apocalypse Now, changed him. Seeing the reception of his violent movies was not what he intended. His intended critiques of gang mentality, capitalism, war were so alluring in their aesthetics that they were read the opposite way of what he wanted. As a result he became very reflective and self critical on his youthful, violent movies. If indeed, Apocalypse was not just a movie about the Vietnam War, it was that war (according to Coppola himself) then doesn't Coppola also have blood on his hands the same way as a general in the Pentagon? He thought so. In fact, even the process of making Apocalypse Now promoted violence. Coppola instructed his producer to personally meet with brutal Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos (responsible for massive amounts of murders and torture of his own people) so the movie could get materiel and support from the Philippine military while shooting. Marcos agreed, and as a result, the helicopters used in the movie would then be shared later in the day by the Marcos-led military in its own Vietnam-style dirty war, with random torching of so called "communist" villages.

Imagine if in the early 1940s, Frank Capra had wanted to shoot an "antiwar" movie about World War I and he decided it needed to be shot in the German-occupied areas of Europe or it wouldn't look authentic, and he asked to have his producers meet personally with Hitler to get his go-ahead, and then after approval, he used the same train cars that were being used to send people to death camps, to shoot scenes, and collaborated with the German military, and imagine if his movie made World War I look so fun that it inspired lots of people in later conflicts like Korea. Would you consider that as an anti-war film?