Depends on how they use their money.
For the sake of simplicity I'm going to restrict this analysis to "famous actors".
The job of acting is working class, however it pays so highly that the actor has enough money to invest into things making them bourgeoisie or petty-bourgeoisie.
If they work doing acting and only use their acting money for life, without investing it into finance etc, they are working class.
Most of them do not restrict themselves to this, meaning they are not.
Determining who falls into which category can not be determined, therefore you have to go on a generalisation, are the majority investing their money into other things as business owners or stocks? I think they are, and therefore I say they are not proletarian. The ones that do not do this are proletarian however, but I can not determine who those are with any measure of certainty.
I would also go so far as to say that they themselves become a business if famous enough. Their public face, their voice, they are a brand. This too is not the proletarian experience.
Non-famous actors neither get paid enough nor have the same circumstances as the famous actors. They are all proletarian, until they're not, at worst they're petty-bourgeoisie who recognise themselves as a brand but have not built it into a true business yet.
I will go a further step and say that people truly invested in advancing the arts trend towards a disdain for the interference of money in their pursuit of furthering the arts. This tends to lean a lot of those people towards marxist sympathies.