As far as the idea of Kubrick "dumbing down" his films, this is mostly in relation to his tendency to explain very obvious plot details in the dialogue. I generally find it to be annoying and unneccesary, ruining the whole idea of what is unique about a film. I mean, if I wanted somebody to explain something to me in unerring detail, I would read a user's manual. Of course, the converse of that argument is that Kubrick didn't need to make films to satisfy me...but, like a computer game once said, opinions are like a**holes: everybody has one and they all stink (I only mention this because I had never seen the end tag to that particular cliche until I played that game)
I do realize that there is quite a bit of irony in Clockwork. In fact, what might be more ironic than the film itself is the title: while many people have pointed out that it is a reference to Alex's programming, I tend to think that it is reflective of how Alex basically starts and ends as the same person, despite the changes that are inflicted upon him, both by himself and others. But I don't think that Alex's explanation of, say, bumping into the former droogs (who are now cops) is ironic in itself. The idea and, particularly, image, are highly ironic and are what carries the irony more than anything Alex could say at that moment. So isn't it logical to feel that anything beyond that is superfluous?
I will have to go back to Eyes Wide Shut one of these days, mainly since I recall that it was more 'suggestive' than most of Kubrick's work that I have seen (and I haven't seen it in ages), though it pains me to consider it since I can't stand films that star "Tom Cruise" (I just don't feel that he is a very good actor...at all...in fact, I can't think of one film that I like in which he appears...of course, you could argue that the films might have been the problem, but no...I just find him to be grating.)
And as far as Kane and Gettys are concerned, I had always thought that the general idea wasn't to figure out which one was superior, but which one was inferior (of course, you could argue that it is a matter of figuring out relative superiority, but in a society where the notion of picking "the lesser of two evils" is widely accepted, I prefer to phrase it this way...after all, evil is still evil, right?). And I can't really tell you which one is worse...though I always did find it intriguing how both men are portrayed with empathy, especially at that point. I think that Welles really had a gift with portraying antagonists, not as the arch-villains that most directors feel a need to make them, but as people. Usually very screwed-up people, but people nonetheless. But, of course, I'm hard-pressed to name anybody who really stands as anything close to a protagonist in the story...hell, maybe Thatcher, simply because he at least tried to do somewhat right by Kane, but then there was that newsreel scene where he called Kane a "communist"...